Retrieve every layer in the active Aseprite sprite, including visibility, opacity, blend mode, and hierarchy position, to verify structure before editing pixels or animation frames.
Lists all layers in the active sprite with visibility, opacity, blend mode, and hierarchy position.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 burden. It discloses the information returned (visibility, opacity, blend mode, hierarchy position), which is helpful and especially valuable since there is no output schema, but it does not state that the operation is read-only/non-mutating or describe error/pagination behavior.
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 front-loaded sentence with no redundancy; every clause earns its place by naming the resource, scope, and returned fields.
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 simple parameterless read tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what the agent needs by listing the returned fields. It could be more complete by noting the read-only nature or failure conditions, but the essentials are present.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter context, but none is needed given the empty schema.
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?
The description uses a specific verb ('Lists') and resource ('layers') scoped to the 'active sprite', and enumerates the returned fields, so an agent immediately knows what it does. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the many layer-mutation siblings (create_layer, delete_layer, etc.), but the 'list' verb makes the read variant distinguishable.
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?
Usage is implied by the 'Lists all layers' phrasing - call it to enumerate layers - but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternative named. Adequate but leaves the agent to infer the context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.