Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
aseprite-mcp

aseprite-mcp

by baichuan4167-lang
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

aseprite_status

Report the Aseprite installation, workspace folders, and active document. Call this first when a tool fails or to find where files are written.

Instructions

Report the Aseprite installation the server found, the workspace folders it uses, and the active document. Call this first if a tool fails, or to learn where files are being written.

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_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden, but this is a zero-parameter read-only query with negligible risk. It discloses the key behavioral trait — the content of the report (installation, workspace folders, active document) — though it never explicitly states it is non-destructive.

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 sentences with zero filler, front-loaded with what is reported before the conditional usage instruction. Every clause earns its place.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With no output schema and no annotations, the description must convey the return value's essence, and it does so at a category level (installation, workspace folders, active document). An agent knows enough to use and trust it; exact field names are unspecified but not essential for a diagnostic call.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes no parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is nothing further the description could add about parameter semantics.

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 ('Report') and three concrete resources (Aseprite installation, workspace folders, active document). This is the only diagnostic/status tool among the ~40 siblings, which are all mutation or export operations, so an agent can distinguish it immediately.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives two explicit usage triggers: 'Call this first if a tool fails' and 'to learn where files are being written.' Clear context for when to invoke, though there is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative (there is no sibling that overlaps, so that omission is minor).

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