Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
aseprite_mcp

aseprite_mcp

by bauneAustin
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

draw_asset

Draw grass, tree, or stone assets at specified coordinates in an Aseprite file.

Instructions

Draws a semantic asset (e.g., "grass", "tree") at a location.

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>",
      "asset": "<asset>",
      "x": "<x>",
      "y": "<y>"
    },
    "name": "draw_asset"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
xYes
yYes
pathYesPath to the .aseprite file
assetYesType of asset to draw

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 only says 'Draws,' which implies a mutating action, but there is no mention of side effects, required project state, error behavior, or output. This leaves significant uncertainty for an agent.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the core action, and contains no extraneous words. It is concise and to the point.

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 four required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too thin. It does not explain how 'location' is used, what 'path' refers to, or any expected behavior after drawing. An agent would struggle to invoke this correctly without additional context.

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?

Schema coverage is only 50% (path and asset have descriptions). The description adds minimal meaning for x and y by mentioning 'location,' but does not clarify coordinate system, units, or how the path relates to the asset. It does not sufficiently compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 ('Draws') and the resource ('semantic asset') with concrete examples ('grass', 'tree'). It also mentions 'at a location,' which maps to the x/y parameters. This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_preview 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 Guidelines2/5

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

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, execution context, or when it would be preferred over sibling tools like run_script or create_project. The usage context is left entirely to inference.

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