Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Aseprite MCP Tools

Aseprite MCP Tools

by ZeroTian
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

reorder_layer

Move a layer to a specified position in the layer stack of an Aseprite file. Adjust order by providing a 1-based target index.

Instructions

Move a layer to a new position in the layer stack.

Args: filename: Aseprite file to modify layer_name: Layer to move position: Target stack position, 1-based where 1 is the bottom layer

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>",
      "position": "<position>"
    },
    "name": "reorder_layer"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
filenameYes
layer_nameYes
positionYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, description carries full burden. It explains the 1-based position indexing (bottom layer=1) but doesn't disclose side effects like shifting of other layers, file saving requirements, or error conditions.

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, with a clear structure: a one-line summary followed by Args section. No redundant information.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool and no output schema, the description covers the main aspects: purpose, required parameters, and position semantics. Could mention layer range validation or effects on other layers, but it's sufficient for a basic reorder operation.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description clearly explains all three parameters (filename, layer_name, position) including the semantics of position as 1-based bottom. This adds significant value beyond the schema.

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 verb 'Move', resource 'layer', and specifies 'to a new position in the layer stack'. This distinguishes it from siblings like add_layer, delete_layer, rename_layer.

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 exclusions or context about 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