Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Aseprite Asset MCP

Aseprite Asset MCP

by jdsalasca
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

add_layer

Add a named layer to an Aseprite file, optionally inside a group, to organize pixel art assets.

Instructions

Add a named layer, optionally inside a group.

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": {
      "filename": "<filename>",
      "layer_name": "<layer_name>"
    },
    "name": "add_layer"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
groupNo
filenameYes
layer_nameYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys that this is a mutation and that placement inside a group is conditional, but doesn't say whether the group is auto-created, whether existing layers are affected, or what happens on name collisions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

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

Eight words, with the action and key parameter both front-loaded. There is no wasted text.

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 mutating, annotation-free tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, this is too thin. Missing filename semantics, group creation behavior, error conditions, and differentiation from sibling layer tools.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain all parameters. It hints that layer_name is the layer's name and group is the optional parent group, but leaves filename completely unexplained despite being required.

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?

Identifies a specific action (add) and resource (named layer) with an optional group placement. Clear enough to distinguish from add_group/delete_layer, but doesn't state what filename refers to or how set_layer differs.

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 statement of when to use this vs add_group/set_layer or other layering operations. No mention of valid target files, group requirements, or whether the layer is inserted at a particular position.

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