Aseprite MCP Tools

by ext-sakamoro

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Local

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes targeting specific Aseprite operations like drawing shapes, palette management, or batch processing, but some overlap exists between 'export_sprite' and 'batch_export' which could cause confusion in selection. Descriptions help clarify, but the boundary between single-file and batch export is not entirely clear from names alone.
Naming Consistency5/5
Tool names consistently follow a verb_noun pattern throughout, such as 'add_frame', 'draw_circle', and 'batch_export', with no deviations in style. This predictability makes it easy for agents to understand and navigate the toolset without confusion from mixed conventions.
Tool Count4/5
With 19 tools, the count is slightly high but reasonable for a comprehensive Aseprite manipulation server, covering operations from creation to export and batch processing. It feels well-scoped for the domain, though it borders on being heavy, which could overwhelm agents but is justified by the functionality offered.
Completeness5/5
The toolset provides complete coverage for Aseprite file manipulation, including CRUD-like operations (e.g., create_canvas, add_frame/layer), drawing functions, palette management, and batch processing. No obvious gaps exist; agents can handle full workflows from sprite creation to export and modification without dead ends.
Average 3.2/5 across 19 of 19 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is a modification ('modify'), implying mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it overwrites existing layers, requires specific file formats, handles errors, or returns confirmation. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose clearly, followed by a structured 'Args:' section. Every sentence earns its place, though the parameter explanations could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.
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 the tool's complexity (mutation with 2 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens after adding the layer (e.g., success confirmation, error handling), nor does it cover edge cases or dependencies, making it inadequate for safe use.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists both parameters ('filename' and 'layer_name') with brief explanations, adding meaning beyond the schema's bare titles. However, it doesn't provide details like file path formats, layer name constraints, or examples, leaving gaps in understanding.
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 action ('Add a new layer') and the target resource ('to the Aseprite file'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'add_frame' by specifying the layer resource type. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other layer-related tools (none in the sibling list), so it's not a perfect 5.
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., file must exist), exclusions, or comparisons with sibling tools like 'create_canvas' or 'export_layers'. The user must infer usage from the purpose alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool modifies files and has a backup option, but doesn't clarify important aspects like whether changes are destructive, what happens on errors, or if there are rate limits. The description is insufficient for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations. Each sentence adds value, though the parameter section could be more integrated with the main description rather than appearing as a separate block.
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 batch mutation tool with 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the return value, error handling, or important behavioral constraints needed for safe operation. The tool modifies multiple files but lacks sufficient context for reliable use.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides basic explanations for all 4 parameters, clarifying what each expects (e.g., 'palette_file' can be a path or preset name). However, it lacks details on format requirements, constraints, or examples that would fully compensate for the schema gap.
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 action ('Apply a palette') and target resources ('multiple Aseprite files'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'apply_preset_palette' or 'remap_colors', which might have overlapping functionality.
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 like 'apply_preset_palette' or 'batch_process_custom'. It mentions basic parameters but doesn't explain prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or exclusions for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool modifies a file ('modify'), implying mutation, but doesn't disclose permissions needed, whether changes are destructive/reversible, error conditions, or what happens if the file doesn't exist. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic action.
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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the main purpose in the first sentence. The parameter explanations are organized but could be more concise; some details like 'default' values are redundant with the schema.
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 mutation tool with 6 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral details (e.g., error handling, side effects), usage context, and doesn't fully compensate for the missing parameter documentation, making it inadequate for safe and effective use.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides parameter names and basic semantics (e.g., 'X coordinate of circle center', 'Radius in pixels', 'Hex color code'), adding meaningful context beyond schema titles. However, it doesn't explain constraints like valid coordinate ranges or color format specifics, leaving some gaps.
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 action ('Draw a circle') and target ('on the canvas'), specifying the resource being modified. It distinguishes from siblings like 'draw_line' or 'draw_rectangle' by specifying the shape, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other drawing tools in terms of when to choose one over another.
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 like 'draw_rectangle' or 'draw_line'. The description mentions modifying an Aseprite file but doesn't specify prerequisites, context, or exclusions for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool extracts a palette from an Aseprite file and optionally saves it, but lacks critical details: whether it modifies the original image, what permissions or file access are needed, error handling (e.g., if the file doesn't exist), rate limits, or the format of the extracted palette (e.g., RGB values, hex codes). This is inadequate for a mutation-like tool with zero annotation coverage.
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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by a clear 'Args:' section listing parameters with brief explanations. There's no wasted text, though it could be more structured (e.g., bullet points). Every sentence adds value, making it efficient for an AI agent to parse.
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 the complexity (a tool that processes image files to extract data), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects (e.g., side effects, error cases), output details (what the extracted palette looks like), or full parameter semantics. For a 3-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, this minimal description is insufficient for reliable agent use.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds some semantics: 'filename' is the Aseprite file to extract from, 'max_colors' limits the palette size with a default of 16, and 'output_filename' optionally saves the palette. However, it doesn't explain parameter constraints (e.g., valid file paths, integer ranges for max_colors, output file formats) or interactions (e.g., if output_filename is null, what happens?). This partially compensates but leaves gaps.
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's purpose: 'Extract a color palette from an existing image.' It specifies the verb ('extract') and resource ('color palette'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'create_palette' or 'get_palette_info'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'apply_preset_palette' or 'batch_apply_palette', which are related but distinct operations.
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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_palette_info' (which might retrieve palette metadata) or 'create_palette' (which might generate a palette from scratch), nor does it specify prerequisites (e.g., the image must be in Aseprite format) or exclusions (e.g., not for modifying palettes). Usage is implied only by the tool name and basic description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It implies a mutation ('modify') but doesn't disclose side effects (e.g., overwriting existing pixels, layer selection), error conditions, or output format. The mention of 'tolerance' hints at color matching behavior, but overall transparency is inadequate for a tool with destructive potential.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a structured Args list. However, the Args section is somewhat redundant as it repeats schema information without adding high-value insights (e.g., explaining coordinate systems or tolerance effects). It's efficient but could be more streamlined by integrating parameter details into the narrative.
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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks critical details: what happens on success/failure, whether changes are undoable, how it interacts with layers or frames, and what the return value is. The parameter explanations help, but overall context is insufficient for safe and effective use.
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%, but the description compensates well by explaining all 5 parameters in the Args section. It clarifies that 'filename' is for an Aseprite file, 'x' and 'y' are coordinates to fill from, 'color' is a hex code with a default, and 'tolerance' defines a 0-255 range for color matching. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema.
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 action ('fill an area with color') and the mechanism ('using the paint bucket tool'), which distinguishes it from other drawing tools like draw_circle or draw_rectangle. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential color manipulation siblings like remap_colors or apply_preset_palette, keeping it at a 4 rather than a 5.
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing Aseprite file), compare to other drawing tools, or specify use cases like filling bounded regions versus general coloring. This lack of contextual direction limits its utility for an AI agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool inspects a file but doesn't mention whether it's read-only, what happens if the file doesn't exist, error handling, or output format. This leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified for a tool that interacts with files.
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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first in a clear sentence. The Args section is structured but could be more integrated; overall, it's efficient with minimal waste, though slight improvements in flow are possible.
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 the complexity of file inspection, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what information is returned (e.g., palette colors, size), error conditions, or dependencies, making it inadequate for an agent to use the tool effectively without guesswork.
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 description adds basic semantics for the single parameter ('filename: Name of the Aseprite file to inspect'), which is helpful since schema description coverage is 0%. However, it doesn't provide details like file format requirements, path handling, or examples, limiting its value beyond the bare minimum.
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's purpose with a specific verb ('Get information') and resource ('current palette in an Aseprite file'), making it easy to understand what it does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'extract_palette_from_image' or 'apply_preset_palette', which prevents a perfect score.
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., file must exist), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'extract_palette_from_image' for different palette-related tasks, leaving the agent with insufficient context for optimal selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It implies a mutation ('modify') but doesn't disclose permissions needed, whether changes are saved automatically, error conditions, or what happens if 'after_frame' is out of bounds. This leaves critical behavioral traits undocumented for a tool that modifies files.
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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by parameter explanations. It's appropriately sized with no redundant information, though the Args section could be integrated more smoothly rather than as a separate block.
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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on success/failure responses, side effects (e.g., file saving), and error handling, which are crucial for an agent to use this tool effectively in a workflow.
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 must compensate. It explains both parameters: 'filename' as the file to modify and 'after_frame' as an optional 0-based index for insertion position. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it could detail file format expectations or default behavior when 'after_frame' is omitted.
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 action ('Add a new frame') and target resource ('to the Aseprite file'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its siblings like 'add_layer' or 'create_canvas', which would require mentioning it specifically handles frames rather than other file components.
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., file must exist), exclusions, or related tools like 'create_canvas' for starting a new file, leaving the agent to infer usage context independently.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool applies scripts to files, implying mutation, but doesn't describe what happens to original files, whether changes are reversible, execution order, error handling, or output behavior when output_dir is null. This leaves significant gaps for a batch processing tool.
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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by a well-organized parameter explanation. Every sentence earns its place, though the parameter explanations could be slightly more detailed about expected formats or constraints.
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?
For a batch processing tool with 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides adequate parameter semantics but lacks crucial behavioral context about mutation effects, error handling, and output behavior. It's minimally viable but has clear gaps given the tool's complexity.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining all 4 parameters in the Args section. It clarifies input_dir contains source files, lua_script executes on each file, output_dir is optional for modified files, and file_pattern defaults to '*.aseprite'. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema.
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 action ('Apply a custom Lua script') and target resource ('multiple Aseprite files'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like batch_export or batch_resize, which also process multiple files but with different operations.
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. With sibling tools like batch_export and batch_resize available, there's no indication of when custom Lua scripting is preferred over those specific operations, nor any prerequisites or constraints mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it states the tool modifies an Aseprite file, it doesn't clarify whether this is a destructive operation, what permissions are needed, or how errors are handled. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic action, leaving critical gaps for a mutation tool.
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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first. The parameter details are organized in a clear 'Args:' section. While efficient, the 'Args:' label is slightly redundant since parameters are already documented in the schema, but overall it avoids unnecessary verbosity.
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 the tool's complexity (a mutation operation with 2 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic action and parameter semantics but misses behavioral details like error handling or side effects. For a tool that modifies files, more context on safety and outcomes would be beneficial.
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?
The description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'filename' is the name of an Aseprite file to modify and details the structure of 'pixels' with x, y coordinates and hex color codes. This compensates well for the schema's lack of documentation, though it doesn't cover edge cases like invalid colors or file formats.
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's purpose: 'Draw pixels on the canvas with specified colors.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like draw_circle or draw_rectangle, which draw different shapes. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from fill_area, which might also modify pixel colors.
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites like needing an existing Aseprite file, nor does it compare to sibling tools like fill_area or draw_rectangle for different use cases. The only implied context is modifying a canvas, but this is insufficient for clear usage decisions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool modifies an Aseprite file, implying mutation, but doesn't address permissions, whether changes are destructive/reversible, error conditions, or side effects. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
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 efficiently structured with a brief purpose statement followed by a parameter list. Every sentence adds value, and it's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity. Minor improvement could come from front-loading more critical context before the parameter details.
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?
For a mutation tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral context, error handling, output expectations, and sibling differentiation. Completeness is borderline given the tool's complexity and missing structured data.
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 must compensate. It provides clear semantics for all 7 parameters, explaining what each represents (e.g., 'Top-left x coordinate', 'Hex color code') and noting defaults for 'color' and 'fill'. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema, though it could benefit from format details like coordinate systems.
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 action ('Draw a rectangle') and target ('on the canvas'), specifying the exact operation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'draw_circle' or 'draw_line' beyond the obvious shape difference, missing guidance on when to choose rectangle over other drawing tools.
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 like 'draw_circle', 'draw_line', or 'fill_area'. The description lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., canvas must exist), typical use cases, or comparisons with sibling tools, leaving the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions modification ('Remap colors') which implies mutation, but doesn't specify permissions needed, whether changes are reversible, file format constraints, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that modifies files.
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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations. The example for 'color_map' is helpful and concise. However, the formatting with 'Args:' could be slightly more polished.
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?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and parameter semantics but lacks important behavioral context like error conditions, file format requirements, or what constitutes success. It's minimally adequate but has clear gaps.
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?
The description provides clear semantic information about both parameters: 'filename' identifies the target file, and 'color_map' is explained with an example dictionary format. Since schema description coverage is 0%, this description effectively compensates by adding meaningful context beyond the bare schema.
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 verb ('Remap') and resource ('colors in an Aseprite file'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'apply_preset_palette' or 'batch_apply_palette', which also involve palette/color modifications.
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 like 'apply_preset_palette' or 'batch_apply_palette'. The description only states what the tool does, without context about prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool exports files but doesn't describe what happens during export (e.g., overwrites existing files, creates output directories, handles errors, or requires specific permissions). For a tool that modifies filesystem content (export implies writing files), this lack of detail on side effects, safety, or performance is a significant gap.
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 well-structured and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by a bulleted list of parameters with concise explanations. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant or vague language. The two-part structure (overview + parameter details) is efficient and easy to parse.
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 the complexity (a batch file-processing tool with 5 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is partially complete. It covers the purpose and parameters well but misses behavioral details (e.g., file overwriting, error handling) and output information. For a tool that performs filesystem operations, this leaves gaps an agent would need to infer or test.
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 must compensate. It adds meaningful context for all 5 parameters in the 'Args' section, explaining each parameter's purpose (e.g., 'input_dir: Directory containing input files'). This goes beyond the schema's minimal titles (e.g., 'Input Dir') and default values, providing clear semantics. However, it doesn't specify allowed values for 'format' beyond examples or constraints for 'scale' and 'file_pattern'.
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's purpose: 'Batch export multiple Aseprite files to another format.' It specifies the verb ('export'), resource ('Aseprite files'), and scope ('multiple'/'batch'), which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this batch export tool from sibling tools like 'export_sprite' or 'export_layers', which likely handle single exports or different export scopes.
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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'export_sprite' (likely for single files) or 'batch_process_custom' (possibly for other batch operations), nor does it specify prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases. The only implied usage is for batch exporting, but this is redundant with the purpose statement.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states 'Create or replace' which implies mutation but doesn't clarify permissions needed, whether it overwrites existing palettes, error conditions, or what happens on success/failure. This leaves significant gaps for a write operation.
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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value, and it's appropriately sized for a tool with three parameters. No wasted words or redundancy.
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?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers parameters well but lacks behavioral context (e.g., what happens when palette_name is null, error handling, or return values). It's minimally adequate but has clear gaps given the complexity.
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?
The description provides clear semantic explanations for all three parameters beyond the schema's 0% coverage: 'filename' as the file to modify, 'colors' as a list of hex codes with an example, and 'palette_name' as optional. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions.
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 action ('Create or replace a palette') and target resource ('in an Aseprite file'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'apply_preset_palette' or 'extract_palette_from_image', but the core functionality is well-defined.
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 like 'apply_preset_palette' or 'batch_apply_palette'. It also doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., file must exist) or when not to use it (e.g., for reading palettes). The context is implied but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the basic export action. It doesn't disclose permissions needed, file overwriting behavior, error handling, or output specifics, leaving significant gaps for a mutation 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 efficiently structured with a brief purpose statement followed by a bulleted parameter list. Every sentence earns its place, and information is front-loaded appropriately.
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?
For a mutation tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers parameters well but lacks behavioral context like side effects or return values. It's partially complete but has notable gaps given the complexity.
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%, but the description compensates well by explaining all 5 parameters with clear semantics, defaults, and examples (e.g., format inference, frame range syntax). It adds substantial value beyond the bare schema.
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 exports an Aseprite file to another format with a specific verb ('Export') and resource ('Aseprite file'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'batch_export' by focusing on single-file export, though not explicitly contrasting them.
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 like 'batch_export' or 'export_layers' is provided. The description implies usage for single-file exports but lacks explicit context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but lacks critical behavioral details: it doesn't specify if files are overwritten, if the operation is destructive, what happens on errors, or performance characteristics. It mentions 'batch' but not concurrency or progress reporting.
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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value, though the parameter list format is slightly verbose. It's appropriately sized for a 7-parameter tool.
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?
For a batch processing tool with 7 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description covers the core operation and parameters adequately but lacks behavioral context (error handling, side effects) and output expectations. It's minimally viable but has clear gaps.
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 all 7 parameters clearly, including optionality, defaults, and relationships (e.g., scale as alternative to width/height). It adds meaningful context beyond schema titles, though some nuances like unit constraints remain implicit.
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 specific action ('batch resize') and resource ('multiple Aseprite files'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'batch_export' or 'batch_apply_palette' which perform different operations. It precisely communicates the tool's function without redundancy.
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 like 'batch_export' or 'batch_process_custom', nor does it mention prerequisites, constraints, or typical scenarios for batch resizing. Usage context is implied but not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 states the tool creates a canvas and outputs a file, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether this overwrites existing files, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what happens on failure (e.g., invalid dimensions). For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The parameter explanations are clear and necessary given the lack of schema descriptions. There's minimal waste, though the structure could be slightly improved by integrating parameter details more seamlessly rather than a separate 'Args:' section.
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 the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is partially complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral details and usage context. For a creation tool that likely involves file system operations, more information on side effects and error handling would be beneficial to fully understand its use.
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?
The description adds meaningful context beyond the input schema, which has 0% schema description coverage. It explains that width and height are in pixels and that filename is the output file name with a default. This compensates well for the lack of schema descriptions, though it doesn't detail constraints like valid pixel ranges or filename formats.
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 specific action ('Create a new Aseprite canvas') and resource ('with specified dimensions'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'add_frame', 'add_layer', or 'draw_rectangle' which modify existing canvases or perform different operations. The verb 'create' is precise and unambiguous.
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. While it's clear this creates a canvas, there's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., whether Aseprite must be running), typical use cases, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'create_palette' or 'batch_process_custom'. The description assumes the user knows when creation is needed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool modifies a file ('modify'), implying mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether changes are saved automatically, if there are permission requirements, or what happens on error. The description is minimal beyond the basic action.
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 front-loaded with the core purpose ('Draw a line on the canvas'), followed by a structured Args section. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it efficient and easy to scan.
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 7 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations or output schema, the description is minimally complete. It covers the basic action and parameters but lacks context on file handling, error behavior, or output, which is a gap for a mutation tool with many parameters.
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%, but the description compensates by listing all 7 parameters with brief semantics (e.g., 'Starting x coordinate', 'Hex color code'). It adds meaning beyond the schema's bare titles, though details like coordinate ranges or color format specifics are still missing.
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 specific action ('Draw a line') and resource ('on the canvas'), with the Aseprite context implied. It distinguishes from siblings like draw_circle, draw_rectangle, and draw_pixels by specifying line drawing specifically.
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 like draw_pixels or fill_area. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing Aseprite file) or contextual constraints, leaving usage unclear beyond the basic action.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the action ('Export') but fails to describe permissions needed, whether files are overwritten, error handling, or output behavior (e.g., file naming conventions). This is inadequate for a tool that modifies the filesystem.
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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a structured Args section. Every sentence adds value—no fluff or repetition. It's appropriately sized for a tool with four parameters.
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 annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is moderately complete. It covers parameters well but lacks behavioral context (e.g., side effects, errors) and output details. For a filesystem-modifying tool, this leaves gaps in understanding the full operation.
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%, but the description compensates by explaining all four parameters in the Args section, adding meaning beyond the schema's titles. It clarifies 'filename' as the Aseprite file, 'output_dir' as the save location, and provides defaults for 'format' and 'scale'. However, it lacks details on parameter constraints (e.g., valid formats).
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 specific action ('Export each layer of the sprite as a separate file') with the resource ('Aseprite file'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'export_sprite' (which likely exports the entire sprite) and 'batch_export' (which may handle multiple files). It uses precise verbs and specifies the scope of the operation.
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 like 'export_sprite' or 'batch_export'. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., file must exist), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this modifies a file ('to modify'), implying mutation, but doesn't disclose whether this overwrites existing palettes, requires file permissions, or has side effects. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic action.
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?
Perfectly front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by structured parameter details. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, and the parameter list is efficiently formatted.
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?
For a 2-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally complete. It covers what the tool does and parameter options, but lacks details on behavioral consequences, error conditions, or return values. Given the complexity, it should provide more operational context.
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 must compensate. It provides clear semantics for both parameters: 'filename' specifies the target file, and 'preset' lists all valid options (gameboy, gameboy-pocket, etc.). This adds essential meaning beyond the bare schema.
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 specific action ('Apply a predefined palette') and target resource ('to an Aseprite file'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_palette' (makes new) and 'extract_palette_from_image' (extracts from image) by focusing on applying existing presets.
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 when you want to apply a preset palette to a file, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives like 'batch_apply_palette' (for multiple files) or 'remap_colors' (for custom color mapping). No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![AsepriteMCP MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ext-sakamoro/AsepriteMCP/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ext-sakamoro/AsepriteMCP)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![AsepriteMCP MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ext-sakamoro/AsepriteMCP/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ext-sakamoro/AsepriteMCP)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/ext-sakamoro/AsepriteMCP'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server