Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Aseprite MCP Tools

Aseprite MCP Tools

by ZeroTian
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

list_slices

Retrieve all slices from an Aseprite file, including their bounds, 9-patch centers, and pivots.

Instructions

List all slices with their bounds, 9-patch centers, and pivots.

Returns: JSON array of {name, x, y, width, height, center?, pivot?}.

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": "list_slices"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
filenameYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Discloses the return format as a JSON array of objects with specified fields. No side effects are mentioned, which is appropriate for a read-only list operation. With no annotations, the description sufficiently covers behavior.

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?

Two concise sentences that efficiently convey the purpose and return format. No unnecessary 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 description specifies the return format, which compensates for the lack of an output schema. However, it does not explain the 'filename' parameter, leaving a minor gap for a simple list tool.

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?

The description does not explain the 'filename' parameter beyond the schema. It does not clarify what filename refers to (e.g., a sprite file path) or how it is used. With 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate but fails to.

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?

Clearly states the tool lists all slices with bounds, 9-patch centers, and pivots. Distinguishes from sibling tools like create_slice, delete_slice, and set_slice_center/pivot, which perform different operations.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description implies usage for retrieving slice information, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, the context of sibling tools makes it clear.

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