aseprite_mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

create_project

Create a new Aseprite project with standard layers. Specify a file name and optional width and height to start sprite creation.

Instructions

Creates a new Aseprite project with standard layers.

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": "create_project"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	Name of the file (e.g., "player.aseprite")
`width`	No
`height`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 1, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'standard layers' without explaining what that entails or any side effects (e.g., overwriting existing files, whether Aseprite needs to be running, or what the return value is). This is insufficient for a creation tool.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose and an additional detail ('standard layers') in minimal space.

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?

For a tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain the meaning of standard layers, potential side effects, or expected return value, leaving significant gaps for an agent to operate safely and correctly.

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 description coverage is only 33%, with only 'name' having an example. The description does not clarify the meaning or usage of 'width' and 'height' beyond their defaults. Since the description does not compensate for the missing parameter documentation, the agent must guess at the role of these fields.

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 primary function: 'Creates a new Aseprite project with standard layers.' The verb 'creates' is specific and the resource ('Aseprite project') is unambiguous. The mention of 'standard layers' adds scope and distinguishes it from sibling tools like launch_aseprite or add_animation.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage for creating new projects, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when-not-to-use, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name and sibling list.

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

Deploy Server