lentera-aseprite-mcp

remove_layer

Delete a layer from the active Aseprite sprite by its name, making layer cleanup straightforward.

Instructions

Remove a layer by name from the active sprite.

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "remove_layer"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes	Layer name to remove

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 14, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It simply states the action but does not reveal that removing a layer is destructive, irreversible, or what happens if the layer does not exist. This is a significant transparency gap for a mutation tool.

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 that front-loads the action and object, with no filler or redundant information. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential context by specifying the target (active sprite) and the action (remove layer by name). It does not explain error behavior or prerequisites beyond the active sprite, but for such a minimal operation this is sufficient.

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 coverage is 100% as the parameter 'name' is described as 'Layer name to remove'. The description adds no extra meaning beyond this, but the parameter is self-explanatory and the schema handles its documentation adequately.

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 a specific verb 'remove' and identifies the resource 'layer' and scope 'active sprite', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like add_layer, list_layers, and set_layer_properties. It unambiguously states the tool's function.

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 'from the active sprite' provides clear context that an active sprite must be present and that the layer is removed from it. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives or exclude cases like non-existent layers or requiring undo permissions, so it falls short of explicit guidance.

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