Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Aseprite MCP Tools

Aseprite MCP Tools

by ZeroTian
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

set_slice_pivot

Define a slice's pivot point by specifying coordinates relative to its origin.

Instructions

Set a slice's pivot point (relative to the slice origin).

Args: filename: Aseprite file to modify name: Slice name x: Pivot x, relative to the slice y: Pivot y, relative to the slice

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>",
      "x": "<x>",
      "y": "<y>"
    },
    "name": "set_slice_pivot"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
filenameYes
nameYes
xYes
yYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose side effects, error conditions, or behavior when the slice doesn't exist. The tool is a mutation, but no safety or behavioral context is added.

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 extremely concise: one sentence for purpose followed by a parameter list. Every part adds value, and the format is front-loaded with the main action. No unnecessary words.

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?

With four required parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It tells what the parameters are but lacks coordinate system details, error handling, or return values. Some gaps remain for a complete understanding.

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 input schema has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage). The description adds brief descriptions for all parameters (x, y, name, filename) beyond the schema's type and title, but they are minimal. This provides useful context but doesn't fully compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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: 'Set a slice's pivot point (relative to the slice origin).' This is a specific verb-resource combination that differentiates from sibling tools like set_slice_center.

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, and no mention of when not to use it. The description only states what it does, not the context.

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