lentera-aseprite-mcp

set_active_layer

Sets the active layer by name in Aseprite, enabling precise layer selection for pixel art editing and animation work.

Instructions

Set the active layer by name.

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": "set_active_layer"
  }
}

Input Schema

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

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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and does not mention behavior on invalid layer names, error handling, side effects, or reversibility, leaving significant gaps.

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, lean sentence with no redundant content, earning full marks for conciseness and structure.

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 one-parameter setter with no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient but lacks behavioral context (e.g., error handling, prerequisites) that would make it fully complete in the absence of annotations.

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% with the parameter 'name' clearly described as 'Layer name to activate'. The description adds no further semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score 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 'Set the active layer by name' clearly states the verb ('set'), resource ('active layer'), and mechanism ('by name'). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like get_active_layer (retrieval) and set_layer_properties (modifying layer settings).

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 for changing the current layer but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_active_layer or set_layer_properties. No exclusions or context are offered.

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