Opens an existing .ase, .aseprite, or .png sprite from an absolute file path for editing in Aseprite.
Opens an existing sprite file (.ase, .aseprite, .png) from disk.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filePath | Yes | Absolute file path to open in Aseprite |
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 does not disclose whether opening replaces the current document, what happens to unsaved changes, whether the file must exist, or what the call returns – all relevant for a tool that mutates application state.
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 filler; nothing is repeated from the schema and nothing extraneous is included.
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 one-parameter tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, this is adequate but thin. The absence of annotations means the description should have covered side effects on the current document, which it does not.
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's 'absolute file path' meaning is fully documented in the schema. The description adds only the supported extension list, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 (opens) and resource (existing sprite file) plus the supported formats (.ase, .aseprite, .png). It is distinguishable from new_sprite through the word 'existing', though that sibling is never named explicitly.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this versus new_sprite, nor any prerequisites such as whether the current sprite must be saved first. Usage is only implied by the word 'opens'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.