Save the active Aseprite sprite to a chosen disk path in .aseprite, .ase, or .png format, letting you export or archive pixel art from a live document.
Saves the active sprite to a specific target file path on disk.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filePath | Yes | Target file path (.aseprite, .ase, or .png) |
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 for what is clearly a write operation. It does not disclose whether an existing file is overwritten, whether the format is inferred from the extension, whether the sprite's associated path changes, or any permission requirements.
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 tight sentence with the action and destination front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity comes partly from omitting useful details.
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 write tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the basic action but omits overwrite behavior and format inference, which matter for a save-to-path operation. Adequate but with clear gaps.
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 schema already documents the filePath parameter and its accepted extensions (.aseprite, .ase, .png). The description adds only the notion of 'specific target file path', which is essentially a restatement, so 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 (saves) and resource (the active sprite) plus the destination concept (target file path on disk). However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling 'save_sprite' or 'export_png', so the agent must infer that '_as' means save-to-a-new-path.
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 is given. With siblings 'save_sprite' and 'export_png' present, the description never explains when to choose save-as over a plain save or an export, leaving the routing decision entirely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.