Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Aseprite MCP Tools

Aseprite MCP Tools

by ZeroTian
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

duplicate_layer

Duplicate a layer with all its cels across every frame, inheriting opacity and blend mode. Place the copy directly above the source or inside a specified group.

Instructions

Duplicate a layer with all its cels across every frame.

The copy inherits the source's opacity and blend mode. By default it is placed directly above the source layer; pass group to place it inside a group instead.

Args: filename: Aseprite file to modify layer_name: Layer to duplicate, by name or "group/subgroup/layer" path new_name: Name for the copy (default: "<layer_name> copy") group: Optional group to place the copy inside, by name or "group/subgroup" path (default: directly above the source)

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>"
    },
    "name": "duplicate_layer"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
filenameYes
layer_nameYes
new_nameNo
groupNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully bears the burden. It discloses that the copy inherits opacity and blend mode, and explains placement behavior. It also covers the naming default. However, it does not mention error handling or permissions, but for a non-destructive duplicate, this is adequate.

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?

The description is concise: a brief summary followed by one behavioral sentence and a clear parameter listing. Every sentence adds value, and the most important information is front-loaded. No wasted words.

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

Completeness4/5

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

The tool has no output schema, and the description does not mention return values. However, it thoroughly covers input parameters and behavioral details. For a duplicate operation, the missing return description is a minor gap, but overall completeness is high given the complexity.

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

Parameters5/5

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

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates fully. It explains each parameter: filename, layer_name with path syntax, new_name with default, and group with placement behavior. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's titles and defaults.

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 clearly states the tool's action: 'Duplicate a layer with all its cels across every frame.' It specifies the verb (duplicate), resource (layer), and scope (all cels across every frame), distinguishing it from sibling tools like copy_cel or delete_layer.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage by describing default behavior and optional grouping, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like copy_layer or when not to use it. No prerequisites or error conditions are mentioned.

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