lentera-aseprite-mcp

save_sprite

Save the active sprite to its current file, or provide a new path to save a copy. Ensure your pixel art changes are stored without leaving the editor.

Instructions

Save the active sprite. Optionally save to a new path.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "save_sprite"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	No	Optional: save to this path (save-as)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 14, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only states 'Save' and 'optionally save to a new path,' but omits important details like whether saving is destructive/overwrites, error conditions (e.g., no active sprite), or what return value to expect.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and containing no filler. Every word earns its place, making it very concise and well-structured.

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?

For a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior. However, it lacks edge-case context (e.g., behavior with no active sprite, whether overwriting occurs) that would make it fully complete for an agent, though the simplicity keeps it minimal but acceptable.

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% for the single optional 'path' parameter, with the schema describing it as 'Optional: save to this path (save-as)'. The description essentially repeats this ('Optionally save to a new path'), adding little semantic value beyond what the schema already provides.

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 ('Save') and resource ('active sprite'), clearly stating the tool's core function. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like open/create/close and export operations. The optional new path is also mentioned, adding precision.

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 when to use the tool (when you want to save the active sprite) but provides no explicit guidance on alternatives or exclusions. It does not contrast with export functions or mention prerequisites, such as having an active sprite.

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