Aseprite-MCP

by iborymagic

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

TypeScript

remove_layer_by_name

Removes a specific layer by name from an Aseprite file and saves the result to a new file or overwrites the original.

Instructions

Removes a layer with a given name and saves to a new file (or overwrites)

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>",
      "saveOutput": "<saveOutput>",
      "inputFile": "<inputFile>"
    },
    "name": "remove_layer_by_name"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`inputFile`	Yes
`layerName`	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?

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions removal and file saving, but lacks details on whether changes are permanent, file handling (overwrite vs new), error behavior, or undo support.

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 short, but it is not well-structured; it combines two actions ('removes' and 'saves') in one phrase. Could be split for clarity.

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?

For a tool with 3 required params, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain output, behavior on missing layers, or whether the original file is modified.

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% and the description adds no meaning beyond parameter names. 'saveOutput' could be a path or flag; 'inputFile' and 'layerName' are self-explanatory but syntax or constraints are missing.

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 removes a layer by name and saves to a new file or overwrites. It distinguishes from sibling tools like merge_visible_layers or export_layer_only, but could be more precise about the overwrite behavior.

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 vs alternatives (e.g., merge_visible_layers, export_layer_only). No context about prerequisites or scenarios.

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