Aseprite-MCP

by iborymagic

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

TypeScript

aseprite_export_frames

Export each frame from an Aseprite file to individual images. Configure output pattern for automated batch processing.

Instructions

Export each frame of 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": {
      "inputFile": "<inputFile>",
      "outputPattern": "<outputPattern>"
    },
    "name": "aseprite_export_frames"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`tag`	No
`inputFile`	Yes
`outputPattern`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.5.0Jul 5, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It only mentions export but does not disclose behavioral traits like file modification, error handling, or output location. Minimal disclosure.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

Extremely short but under-specified. It lacks necessary detail, making it incomplete rather than concise. Cannot be considered effective 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 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is highly incomplete. It does not cover return values, parameter semantics, or behavior, leaving major gaps for an agent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0% (no parameter descriptions). Description adds no meaning beyond property names; 'tag' and 'outputPattern' are unexplained. Fails to compensate for 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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Export' and resource 'each frame of Aseprite file', differentiating from siblings like 'aseprite_export_sheet' and 'aseprite_export_metadata'. However, it could be more specific about what exporting entails (e.g., format).

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, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The description does not help the agent decide contextually.

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