Aseprite-MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

aseprite_export_sheet

Export Aseprite files to sprite sheet images with customizable layout options like rows, columns, or packed arrangement.

Instructions

Export Aseprite file to sprite sheet image

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>",
      "outputSheet": "<outputSheet>"
    },
    "name": "aseprite_export_sheet"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`tag`	No
`dataFile`	No
`inputFile`	Yes
`sheetType`	No	packed
`outputSheet`	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?

With no annotations present, the description must disclose behavioral traits independently. It only describes a read-like export operation, but does not mention whether files are overwritten, what output format is used, or any side effects. This is minimal for a file-creation tool.

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 a single sentence, achieving conciseness. However, it sacrifices necessary detail; a slightly longer description with parameter explanations would improve usability without being verbose.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Given the tool has 5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It omits parameter meanings, output details, and behavioral notes, leaving too much ambiguity for reliable agent invocation.

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 description coverage is 0%, yet the description does not explain any of the 5 parameters (inputFile, outputSheet, tag, dataFile, sheetType). Without parameter semantics, the agent cannot correctly populate the input schema. The description adds no value over the parameter names alone.

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 'Export Aseprite file to sprite sheet image', specifying the action and resource. However, it does not differentiate this tool from siblings like aseprite_export_frames or aseprite_export_metadata, relying on the tool name to imply the output is a sprite sheet.

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 such as aseprite_export_frames. No context about prerequisites, suitable scenarios, or exclusions is given, leaving the agent to guess.

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