aseprite-mcp

aseprite_load_palette

Apply a preset retro palette or load a custom .gpl/.ase file to establish a coherent color scheme for pixel art. Use built-in options like pico8, gameboy, nes, and more.

Instructions

Apply a well-known retro palette by name, or load one from a .gpl/.ase file. Great starting point for a coherent piece. Presets: pico8, gameboy, nes, db16, db32, sweetie16, endesga32.

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_load_palette"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`file`	No	Absolute path to a .gpl or .ase palette file.
`preset`	No	Built-in palette name.
`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

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 behavioral burden. It says 'apply/load' but does not disclose whether this replaces the existing palette, affects the active document, requires indexed mode, or is undoable.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is short and front-loaded, with the core action stated first. The preset list duplicates the schema enum and 'Great starting point' is somewhat decorative, but overall it is efficient.

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 palette-mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description identifies sources and brief intent but omits the effect on the document or palette and any error behavior. The schema covers parameters well, making this adequate but not 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 repeats preset names already enumerated in the schema and mentions .gpl/.ase files, but adds no syntax, constraints, or semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 and resource: apply a retro palette by name or load one from a .gpl/.ase file. The source choices make the tool recognizable, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as aseprite_set_palette or aseprite_quantize_palette.

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?

Offers implied guidance with 'Great starting point for a coherent piece,' suggesting early workflow use. It does not state when to prefer this over set_palette/get_palette/quantize_palette or provide exclusions.

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

Deploy Server