aseprite-mcp

aseprite_merge_layer_down

Merge a selected layer into the layer beneath it to flatten shading or finalize artwork. Specify a document or layer, or omit to use the active document.

Instructions

Merge a layer into the one beneath it. Use at the end of a piece, or to flatten shading into a base layer.

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_merge_layer_down"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	No	Layer to merge down (default: the bottom layer).
`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

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Merge' implies a destructive mutation that removes the source layer, but the description never states that the merged layer is consumed/deleted, nor any prerequisite that a layer must exist beneath it. The core direction is clear, but the destructive consequence is left implicit.

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?

Two short sentences with the core action front-loaded and zero filler. The second sentence is somewhat imprecise (a merge-down is not exclusively an end-of-piece operation), which slightly dilutes the otherwise tight 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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits key context an agent needs: that the operation is destructive (source layer removed), and how it differs from aseprite_flatten. It is adequate but leaves notable gaps.

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%, so both optional parameters (name, document) are fully documented in the schema, including the default-layer behavior. The description adds no parameter detail beyond that, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb (merge), resource (a layer), and direction (into the one beneath it), which distinguishes it from siblings like aseprite_flatten, aseprite_remove_layer, and aseprite_add_layer.

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 second sentence gives loose usage context ('at the end of a piece, or to flatten shading into a base layer'), but it never names or distinguishes the close alternative aseprite_flatten (which flattens all layers) nor states when-not to use this tool. Context is implied rather than precise.

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

Deploy Server