lentera-aseprite-mcp

export_sprite_sheet

Combine animation frames into a single sprite sheet image. Configure layout (horizontal, vertical, packed), scale, and tag-based frame selection.

Instructions

Export a sprite sheet (all frames as horizontal/vertical/packed strip).

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_sprite_sheet"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`tag`	No	Export only frames from this tag (null = all frames)
`path`	Yes	Output PNG path
`scale`	No
`layout`	No
`merge_duplicates`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 14, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It only mentions the output format, but does not state whether the tool overwrites files, requires a saved sprite, has side effects on the sprite state, or what errors might occur. This is a significant gap for a mutating file-export operation.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose and key output variation. It is concise and free of fluff.

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 five parameters, but the description covers only the layout concept. There is no output schema, no explanation of return values, and no discussion of how it interacts with sprite state or other tools. Given the complexity and sibling toolset, the description is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 40%, so the description should compensate for the undocumented parameters. It adds meaning for 'layout' by referencing the horizontal/vertical/packed strip, but does not explain 'scale' or 'merge_duplicates'. Also, saying 'all frames' is misleading because the 'tag' parameter allows exporting only a subset.

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 sprite sheet, with a specific verb ('Export') and resource ('sprite sheet'), and it mentions the layout options (horizontal/vertical/packed). This distinguishes it from sibling export tools like export_frame (single frame) and export_layers (individual layers).

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. There are many sibling export tools (export_frame, export_animation_tag, export_godot_spriteframes), but no context or exclusions are given to help an agent choose correctly.

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