Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Aseprite-MCP

Aseprite-MCP

by iborymagic
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript

get_active_sprite_info

Retrieves metadata from the active sprite, including dimensions, layers, and frames, to enable automated sprite analysis.

Instructions

Gets information about the active sprite

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>"
    },
    "name": "get_active_sprite_info"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
inputFileYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.5.0

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Without annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only says 'Gets information' without specifying what information, side effects, or error conditions. The agent is left guessing about return data and failure modes.

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, making it concise, but it lacks structure or bullet points that could improve readability. It is not overly verbose, but it could be more informative in the same space.

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 presence of many sibling tools and the absence of an output schema, the description fails to specify what information is returned (e.g., position, size, name). This incompleteness severely limits the agent's ability to select and use the tool correctly.

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?

The sole parameter inputFile has no description in the schema (0% coverage) and the tool description does not explain its purpose, format, or required value. The agent receives no semantic help beyond the parameter name.

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 'Gets information about the active sprite', using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling 'get' tools like get_frame_info or get_layer_list, which also retrieve information.

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, nor any prerequisites or context for invocation. The agent receives no hints about file state or active sprite existence.

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