Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
aseprite_mcp

aseprite_mcp

by bauneAustin
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

add_animation

Adds named animation tags and frames to existing Aseprite sprite files to create animated sequences.

Instructions

Adds a named animation tag and frames to a sprite.

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": {
      "path": "<path>",
      "tag": "<tag>"
    },
    "name": "add_animation"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tagYesName of the animation (e.g., "walk")
pathYesPath to the .aseprite file
framesNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the operation but omits side effects (e.g., modifying the .aseprite file), the meaning of the frames parameter, and any requirements or permissions. This is insufficient for safe invocation.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without any wasted words or unnecessary complexity.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and moderate complexity (3 parameters), the description fails to compensate. It does not explain parameter semantics, return behavior, or operational context, making it minimally adequate but incomplete for autonomous use.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The schema describes tag and path, but the description adds little beyond repeating 'tag' and 'frames.' It does not explain the frames parameter's meaning, default behavior, or relationship to the sprite, leaving a gap for the undocumented parameter.

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?

The description clearly states the action (adds) and the specific resource (named animation tag and frames to a sprite). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like draw_asset and get_preview by focusing on animation metadata rather than drawing or previewing.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The description only defines the core functionality, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and parameters.

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