lentera-aseprite-mcp

set_layer_properties

Set and adjust layer properties—name, opacity, visibility, blend mode, and lock—to manage your pixel art layers.

Instructions

Set properties of a layer (name, opacity, visibility, blend mode).

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_layer_properties"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	Target layer name
`locked`	No	Lock layer
`opacity`	No	Opacity 0-255
`visible`	No	Layer visibility
`new_name`	No	Rename to this
`blend_mode`	No	Blend mode (normal, multiply, screen, overlay, etc.)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 14, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It does not mention side effects, error handling, permissions, or whether changes are reversible. The description is purely functional with no behavioral context.

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, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and includes useful parenthetical detail. It is appropriately concise with no wasted words.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin for a mutation tool with six parameters. It does not explain what happens on error, whether partial updates are supported, or any behavioral consequences. The description needs more context to be complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a bit by listing some properties, but the schema already documents each parameter clearly. The description does not provide additional meaning beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool sets properties of a layer and lists the main properties (name, opacity, visibility, blend mode). It distinguishes from sibling layer tools (add, remove, list, get/set active), though it does not explicitly mention all schema properties like locked or new_name.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are any exclusions or prerequisites mentioned. The description only states what it does without context.

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