Switches the active frame in Aseprite to a specified 1-indexed number, so subsequent edits target that frame.
Changes active frame number in the editor.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| frameNumber | Yes | Frame number to select (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 provided, so the description carries the full burden. It doesn't state whether this affects persistent editor state, whether it requires a sprite to be open, or what happens when frameNumber exceeds the frame count.
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 no filler. Front-loaded with the action, though generic phrasing.
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 single-param stateful mutation with no annotations or output schema, more behavioral context (state persistence, required preconditions) would help. It's minimally adequate but leaves important 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 coverage is 100% and the schema documents frameNumber as 1-indexed with exclusiveMinimum 0. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond this baseline.
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 clear verb (select/change) and resource (frame) in the editor. However, it doesn't differentiate from the sibling select_layer, which has the same 'select' pattern applied to a different resource.
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 vs. siblings like list_frames or create_frame. The agent must infer that selecting is for making a frame active before drawing/editing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.