Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Aseprite MCP

Aseprite MCP

by diivi
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

get_sprite_info

Retrieve essential sprite data including dimensions, frame count, and layers from an Aseprite file in JSON format.

Instructions

Return sprite info as JSON string (size, frame count, layers).

Args: filename: Name of the Aseprite file to inspect

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": {
      "filename": "<filename>"
    },
    "name": "get_sprite_info"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
filenameYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It implies read-only operation but does not explicitly state that no modifications occur, nor does it mention permissions, rate limits, or side effects. The return format is described, but behavioral traits beyond that are absent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise with two short sentences, front-loading the purpose. It uses a clear structure with an Args section. No unnecessary words.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given no output schema, the description covers return value contents (size, frame count, layers) but remains vague about completeness. It does not address error cases, file not found, or other edge behaviors. For a simple info tool, it is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by explaining the sole parameter 'filename' as 'Name of the Aseprite file to inspect'. This adds meaning beyond the raw schema, which only provides the type and title.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool returns sprite info as JSON string with size, frame count, and layers. The verb 'Return' and resource 'sprite info' are specific. However, it does not differentiate from sibling info-getters like get_palette or get_pixel_color, which also retrieve sprite data.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_palette or get_pixel_color. The description lacks context for selection among multiple info-retrieval tools.

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