Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
aseprite-mcp

aseprite-mcp

by baichuan4167-lang
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

aseprite_set_loop

Set a custom loop range for sprite playback or export by specifying start and end frames, ensuring animations repeat only within that segment.

Instructions

Restrict playback/export looping to a frame range of the whole sprite.

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_set_loop"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toNoZero-based frame index (omit for the first frame).
fromNoZero-based frame index (omit for the first frame).
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

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does note the effect applies to both playback and export, but does not say whether the range persists in the saved file, what happens when from/to are omitted or inverted, or whether existing loop settings are replaced.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the scope qualifier comes after the action. It is efficient, though there is little structure to speak of.

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

Completeness2/5

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

A mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no statement of persistence, defaults, or interaction with tags/playback state. An agent calling it cannot predict side effects or failure modes.

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 from/to/document are already documented as zero-based indices with an active-document default. The phrase 'of the whole sprite' is the only added meaning, so 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: restricting playback/export looping to a frame range. An agent can tell this is a loop-range setter, distinct from frame-duration or tag tools, though it never names a sibling to differentiate further.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no stated prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as aseprite_set_tag or aseprite_set_frame_duration. The agent must infer the use case entirely from the one-line purpose.

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