aseprite-mcp

aseprite_remove_frame

Delete a frame from an Aseprite document while ensuring at least one frame remains.

Instructions

Delete a frame. Refuses to remove the last remaining frame.

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": {
      "index": "<index>"
    },
    "name": "aseprite_remove_frame"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`index`	Yes	Zero-based frame index (omit for the first frame).
`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

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one meaningful constraint: the tool refuses to remove the last remaining frame. However it omits other behavioral details an agent would want for a destructive operation, such as whether deletion is undoable, what happens to cels/tags on the deleted frame, or what the call returns.

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 with zero filler; the action is front-loaded and the key constraint follows immediately. Nothing here wastes the agent's context.

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 simple two-parameter mutation with rich schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the action and its main guardrail. It falls short on side effects and reversibility, which matter for a delete operation that has no annotations to supply them.

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 both 'index' and 'document' are already fully documented in the schema, including zero-based indexing and default-to-active-document behavior. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that baseline.

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 ('Delete a frame'), which cleanly distinguishes it from sibling frame operations like duplicate_frame and move_frame. It stops short of naming an alternative operation, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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 when-to-use context, prerequisites, or alternative routing is given. The refusal condition is a behavioral rule rather than usage guidance, and it never says when to prefer this over moving, duplicating, or reordering frames.

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

Deploy Server