lentera-aseprite-mcp

export_layers

Export each layer as a separate PNG file to a specified output directory. Supports choosing a specific frame and format.

Instructions

Export each layer as a separate PNG file.

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": {
      "output_dir": "<output_dir>"
    },
    "name": "export_layers"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`frame`	No
`format`	No
`output_dir`	Yes	Output directory path

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 carries the full burden. It only says 'export each layer as a separate PNG file,' but omits that the format can be GIF (schema allows gif) and doesn't address the frame parameter or naming/overwrite behavior. The description is slightly misleading by specifying PNG only.

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, concise sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the action and target.

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?

For a tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the one-sentence description is incomplete. It doesn't explain how frame or format affect the export, nor what the output files will be named or where they go.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is only 33% (output_dir has a description). The description adds no meaning for the frame or format parameters, leaving them undocumented. It fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 (export) and the resource (each layer) and output (separate PNG file). It distinguishes from sibling export tools like export_frame and export_sprite_sheet.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The wording implies this is for exporting individual layers as separate files, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or mention any exclusions. No direct comparison to other export tools.

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