Copy an existing frame and its cels to add a new frame in Aseprite, preserving pixel content for animation edits.
Duplicates an existing frame and its cels.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| frameNumber | Yes | Frame number to duplicate (1-indexed) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden for a mutation tool. It says what is copied (cels) but not where the duplicate is inserted, whether the new frame becomes selected, what happens to tags or frame durations, or whether the source must be selected first.
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 short sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the action. It is efficient, though its brevity contributes to the missing behavioral detail noted elsewhere.
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?
No output schema and no annotations, but the operation is simple and the schema is self-documenting for its one parameter. The description is minimally adequate, though an agent still lacks the post-conditions (insertion position, selection state) needed to chain it confidently with select_frame or set_frame_duration.
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 the single parameter is fully documented in the schema (1-indexed frame number with exclusiveMinimum 0). The description adds no parameter detail, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 (Duplicates) and resource (frame), and adds scope detail ('and its cels') that tells the agent exactly what is copied. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling create_frame or indicate how the result differs from manually creating a frame.
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 when-to-use guidance, no conditions, and no mention of the obvious alternative create_frame. The agent must infer that duplication is preferable when the caller wants an identical copy rather than an empty frame.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.