Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Aseprite MCP Tools

Aseprite MCP Tools

by ZeroTian
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

delete_slice

Delete a specific slice from an Aseprite file by providing its name.

Instructions

Delete a slice by name.

Args: filename: Aseprite file to modify name: Slice name to delete

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "filename": "<filename>",
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "delete_slice"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
filenameYes
nameYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description 'Delete' implies mutation, but provides no details on permanence, side effects, error conditions, or return value. With no annotations, the description fails to disclose behavioral traits beyond the basic operation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is very concise with no wasted words, using a clear structure: one-line purpose followed by parameter explanations. It earns space, though additional details would be welcome.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple delete operation, the description covers the essential inputs but omits return values and error handling. With no output schema and no annotations, the tool description leaves gaps in understanding the complete behavior.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description adds context by clarifying 'filename' as the file to modify and 'name' as the slice name, providing value beyond the schema's default titles. However, it lacks specifics like file path requirements or name matching behavior.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description explicitly states the action 'Delete' and the resource 'slice', with the identifier 'by name', distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_slice or list_slices.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites or conditions mentioned (e.g., slice must exist), and no exclusions or when-not-to-use scenarios.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools