Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
aseprite-mcp

aseprite-mcp

by baichuan4167-lang
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

aseprite_info

Inspect an Aseprite document's size, color mode, layers, frames, and tags to reorient before editing or verify changes.

Instructions

Report a document's size, colour mode, layer list, frame list (with durations) and tags. Call this when you need to re-orient before editing, or to confirm a change landed.

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": "aseprite_info"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
documentNoDocument 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.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It effectively communicates that this is a non-mutating report and what fields it surfaces, but never explicitly states it changes nothing, requires no permissions, or has any cost/side effects – leaving the safety profile to inference.

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 tight sentences: the first enumerates the returned data, the second gives the when-to-use. Zero filler and the content is front-loaded.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With no output schema, the description must convey return values and does so thoroughly. Combined with the schema's full parameter documentation, an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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?

The single 'document' parameter is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), including short-name, relative-path, absolute-path resolution and the omit-to-use-active behavior. The description adds no further parameter meaning, so baseline 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?

Names a specific verb ('Report') and enumerates exactly the resource facets returned: document size, colour mode, layer list, frame list with durations, and tags. This distinguishes it from siblings like aseprite_status or aseprite_get_palette, which cover different facets.

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?

States two concrete trigger conditions ('re-orient before editing', 'confirm a change landed'), which gives an agent clear context for selecting this over siblings. It stops short of naming an explicit alternative when a narrower read tool would do, but the guidance is actionable.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools