Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Aseprite MCP Tools

Aseprite MCP Tools

by ZeroTian
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

draw_rectangle_at

Draw a rectangle on any layer and frame, specifying position, size, color, and fill option. Automatically creates the layer if missing.

Instructions

Draw a rectangle on a specific layer/frame.

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>",
      "layer_name": "<layer_name>",
      "frame_index": "<frame_index>",
      "x": "<x>",
      "y": "<y>",
      "width": "<width>",
      "height": "<height>"
    },
    "name": "draw_rectangle_at"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
filenameYes
layer_nameYes
frame_indexYes
xYes
yYes
widthYes
heightYes
colorNo#000000
fillNo
create_if_missingNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose whether the rectangle is filled, outlines, replaces existing content, or uses current styles. Minimal behavioral context.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

A single sentence with no extraneous words. It is appropriately concise.

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

Completeness2/5

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

With 10 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is too minimal. It does not explain drawing behavior, error cases, or coordinate system, leaving the agent without enough context.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning no parameter explanations. The description adds no value beyond parameter names. For a tool with 10 parameters, this is insufficient.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the action (draw a rectangle) and the target (specific layer/frame). It distinguishes from sibling tools like draw_rectangle which may not target a layer/frame. However, it could be more precise about the coordinate system or units.

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 like draw_rectangle or draw_circle. There is no mention of prerequisites or when not to use it.

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