lentera-aseprite-mcp

open_sprite

Open an existing .aseprite or .png file in Aseprite via absolute path to begin editing or automated processing.

Instructions

Open an existing sprite file in Aseprite.

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": "open_sprite"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	Yes	Absolute path to .aseprite or .png file

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 14, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention side effects such as whether the currently open sprite is replaced, if multiple sprites can be open, handling of unsaved changes, or error conditions. This is a significant gap for a mutating action.

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 sentence that directly states the action and target without any redundant information. It is efficient and well-structured.

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?

Despite being a simple tool, the absence of annotations and output schema leaves critical context unaddressed. The description doesn't clarify the impact on the current workspace, which is important given the existence of siblings like list_open_sprites and close_sprite. The agent lacks information needed to reason about state transitions.

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 covers 100% of the parameters, including a clear explanation of the 'path' parameter ('Absolute path to .aseprite or .png file'). The tool description adds no further parameter semantics, 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 uses the specific verb 'open' with the resource 'existing sprite file in Aseprite', making the tool's function clear. It distinguishes itself from siblings like create_sprite, save_sprite, and close_sprite by focusing on loading an existing file.

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 description implies usage when an existing sprite needs to be loaded for editing, but it provides no explicit alternatives or exclusion scenarios. It doesn't mention when to use this over create_sprite or other related tools, so guidance is only implicit.

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