Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Aseprite-MCP

Aseprite-MCP

by iborymagic
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript

get_is_layer_exists

Check if a specific layer exists in an active Aseprite sprite. Returns true or false based on layer presence.

Instructions

Checks if a layer exists in 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": {
      "layerName": "<layerName>",
      "inputFile": "<inputFile>"
    },
    "name": "get_is_layer_exists"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
inputFileYes
layerNameYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.5.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

The description is minimal and does not disclose behavioral traits such as return value (likely boolean), side effects, or whether it requires any specific permissions. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but fails to provide adequate transparency.

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 a single efficient sentence with no unnecessary words. However, given the simplicity of the tool, this length is appropriate.

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?

Without output schema or annotations, the description lacks information about the return value, error handling, or how 'active sprite' is determined. The 2 parameters are not elaborated, making the description incomplete for effective tool invocation.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The input schema has 2 parameters (`layerName`, `inputFile`) with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain these parameters, leaving the agent to infer their meaning from 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 the verb 'Checks' and the resource 'layer exists in the active sprite', making the tool's purpose easy to understand. However, it could be more specific about what 'active sprite' refers to in the context of the tool suite.

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 `get_layer_list` or `get_is_tag_exists`. No exclusions or when-not-to-use scenarios are mentioned.

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