lentera-aseprite-mcp

create_sprite

Create a new sprite in Aseprite with custom dimensions and color mode, then open it in the GUI for editing.

Instructions

Create a new sprite in Aseprite. Opens it in the GUI.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "create_sprite"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	No	Sprite name
`width`	No	Width in pixels (default: 32)
`height`	No	Height in pixels (default: 32)
`color_mode`	No	Color mode (default: rgba)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 14, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention that the sprite opens in the GUI, but it does not state whether the sprite is persisted, becomes the active sprite, or how it interacts with existing documents. For a mutation tool, this lack of detail is insufficient.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two short sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action and adds one key behavioral trait, making it both concise and easy to parse.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has no required parameters and no output schema, yet the description does not clarify what happens when 'name' is omitted (the schema provides no default for name). It also does not mention return values or error conditions. For a create operation with four parameters, this is incomplete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are fully documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action (create) and resource (a sprite in Aseprite), and adds the side effect of opening it in the GUI. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like open_sprite, which opens existing sprites.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase 'Create a new sprite' provides clear context for when to use this tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the intended use case—creating a new sprite rather than opening an existing one—is unambiguous.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.