Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
aseprite_mcp

aseprite_mcp

by bauneAustin
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

get_preview

Generate a PNG preview of an Aseprite file to visually inspect the current artwork.

Instructions

Gets a PNG preview of the specified Aseprite file.

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>"
    },
    "name": "get_preview"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYesPath to the .aseprite file

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation via 'Gets' but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as file existence requirements, side effects, or potential errors. This minimal disclosure is adequate for a simple preview tool but leaves some ambiguity.

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 that efficiently communicates the tool's action and resource without any waste. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

For a tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently identifies the input (Aseprite file) and output (PNG preview). While it lacks notes on error conditions or assumptions, the simple context makes it largely complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage for the single 'path' parameter with a clear description ('Path to the .aseprite file'). The description only restates this as 'specified Aseprite file', adding no extra semantic value beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Gets a PNG preview of the specified Aseprite file', using a specific verb ('Gets') and resource ('PNG preview of Aseprite file'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on scripting, launching, creating projects, adding animations, or drawing assets.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and does not mention any exclusions or prerequisites. It is a purely functional statement without contextual usage direction.

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