lentera-aseprite-mcp

export_frame

Export a specific animation frame as a PNG file, with options to select a layer and adjust scale.

Instructions

Export a single frame as PNG.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "export_frame"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`path`	Yes	Output PNG path
`frame`	No	Frame number to export (null = active frame)
`layer`	No	Layer to export (null = all flattened)
`scale`	No	Export scale multiplier (default: 1)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 14, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must bear the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Export a single frame as PNG,' omitting critical traits like whether the file is created/overwritten, whether the sprite is modified, or whether a sprite must be open. The schema covers parameter defaults, but side effects are not mentioned.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It communicates the essential purpose efficiently.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The description is minimal but adequate for a simple export tool. However, it lacks contextual details about how this fits among sibling export tools (e.g., when to choose export_frame over export_sprite_sheet or export_animation_tag), which would improve completeness for an agent deciding between tools.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% — all four parameters have clear descriptions ('Output PNG path', 'Frame number to export (null = active frame)', etc.). The tool description adds no extra parameter information, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool exports a single frame as PNG. The verb 'Export' with resource 'single frame' and format 'PNG' distinguishes it from sibling tools like export_sprite_sheet and export_animation_tag.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as export_sprite_sheet, export_layers, or take_screenshot. It simply states the action without context for tool selection.

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