Aseprite-MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

merge_visible_layers

Merge all visible layers in an Aseprite file into a single layer, simplifying layer management and preparing for export.

Instructions

Merges all currently visible layers into a single layer

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": {
      "saveOutput": "<saveOutput>",
      "inputFile": "<inputFile>"
    },
    "name": "merge_visible_layers"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`inputFile`	Yes
`saveOutput`	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 are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It states a merge but does not disclose whether the operation is destructive (e.g., original layers removed), what happens to hidden layers, or the output format. This lack of behavioral detail 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.

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is a single brief sentence, which is concise but sacrifices critical information. While the tool appears simple, the brevity leads to under-specification, making it merely adequate.

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 two required parameters, no output schema, and zero parameter documentation, the description fails to provide enough context for correct invocation. It omits details about parameter format, merge outcomes, and potential side effects.

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 description mentions no parameters, and the input schema has 0% documentation coverage for the two required string parameters (inputFile and saveOutput). An agent has no idea what these strings represent (file paths? layer names?) and cannot correctly invoke the tool.

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 uses a specific verb ('merges') and resource ('all currently visible layers'), clearly indicating the action and scope. It distinguishes from sibling tools that export, remove, or list layers, but does not elaborate on the merge behavior (e.g., how layers are combined).

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 over alternatives (e.g., export_layer_only, remove_layer_by_name). It lacks context such as prerequisites or typical use cases, leaving the agent without decision support.

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