Creates a folder layer group to organize layers in Aseprite, requiring a group name. Helps manage complex pixel art projects by structuring layers into folders.
Creates a folder layer group for organizing layers.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Group folder name |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not say whether the group is created at the top level or nested under the active layer, whether the new group becomes selected, what happens on name collision, or whether the parent group must exist — all of which matter for a hierarchy-mutating tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single efficient sentence with the key action and resource front-loaded and no wasted words. It is arguably under-specified rather than padded, but nothing is redundant.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at least describe nesting behavior and what is returned (e.g., the new group's identifier). It omits these, leaving the agent unable to predict the operation's effect on the layer tree.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% and there is a single 'name' parameter documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no naming constraints, uniqueness rules, or format details beyond what the schema already states.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (creates) and resource (folder layer group for organizing layers), and the word 'folder' distinguishes it from the sibling create_layer. However, it never explicitly contrasts itself with create_layer, so an agent must infer the relationship between the two tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this versus create_layer, no prerequisites (e.g., must a sprite be open or a layer selected?), and no exclusions. The agent is left to guess based on the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.