aseprite-mcp

aseprite_crop

Crop every frame to a rectangle to trim dead space around artwork. Specify x, y, width, and height to define the crop area.

Instructions

Crop every frame to a rectangle. Use to trim dead space around the artwork.

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": {
      "x": "<x>",
      "y": "<y>",
      "width": "<width>",
      "height": "<height>"
    },
    "name": "aseprite_crop"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`x`	Yes	Left edge (0-based).
`y`	Yes	Top edge (0-based).
`width`	Yes
`height`	Yes
`document`	No	Document to act on: a short name inside the art folder ("hero"), a relative path, or an absolute .aseprite path. Omit to use the active document.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Sep 27, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose scope ('every frame'), which is genuinely useful, but it omits that cropping is destructive (pixels outside the rect are discarded) and whether sprite dimensions, tags, or cels are recalculated.

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?

Two short sentences, zero waste, with the core action front-loaded and the use case trailing. Nothing needs cutting.

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?

A 5-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema needs more than two sentences. Missing are destructive-effects disclosure, what happens to art outside the rectangle, and whether canvas/sprite dimensions change as a result.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 60%: x, y, and document are documented, but width and height carry only a minimum constraint with no meaning. The description adds no parameter guidance at all, so it fails to compensate for the four undocumented rectangle semantics.

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?

States a specific verb (crop) and resource (every frame) with the target shape of the operation (a rectangle). 'Every frame' usefully distinguishes it from per-frame or canvas-level operations, though it does not explicitly name the nearest siblings like aseprite_resize_canvas or aseprite_scale_sprite.

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?

'Use to trim dead space around the artwork' gives a concrete motivating scenario, which is better than nothing. However it offers no when-not guidance and no alternatives (e.g., vs resize_canvas or scale_sprite), leaving the agent to infer when cropping is preferred over resizing.

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

Deploy Server