aseprite-mcp

aseprite_remove_layer

Delete a layer and all its contents from an Aseprite document by specifying the layer name; omit the document to target the active file.

Instructions

Delete a layer and everything drawn on it.

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "aseprite_remove_layer"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes	Layer to delete.
`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?

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does usefully disclose that layer contents are destroyed along with the layer, which is real behavioral value. However, it says nothing about irreversibility/undo, permission or document-state requirements, or what happens if the layer is referenced elsewhere.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the verb-resource pair, and the destructive scope is appended rather than buried. No filler.

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 two-parameter destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the definition is minimally adequate: the target and the destructive scope are clear, and the schema handles parameters. It is missing failure modes, reversibility, and any routing to related layer operations, which limits confidence on an irreversible action.

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%: both 'name' and 'document' are documented in the schema, including the art-folder/relative/absolute path convention and the active-document default. The description adds nothing beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Delete') and resource ('a layer'), and adds the scope of deletion. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like aseprite_remove_frame or aseprite_remove_tag by naming the layer as the target, though it does not explicitly contrast against the closest sibling, aseprite_merge_layer_down.

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?

The description gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives (e.g., when to merge_layer_down instead, or whether this is the right call for clearing a layer's contents). The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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

Deploy Server