Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Aseprite Asset MCP

Aseprite Asset MCP

by jdsalasca
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

build_sprite_runtime_bundle

Build a single deterministic runtime bundle from a sprite, combining an animation sheet, timing manifest, and hitbox manifest for direct game use.

Instructions

Build one deterministic runtime bundle with an animation sheet, timing manifest, and sprite hitbox manifest.

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": {
      "input_filename": "<input_filename>",
      "sheet_filename": "<sheet_filename>",
      "sheet_manifest_filename": "<sheet_manifest_filename>",
      "hitbox_manifest_filename": "<hitbox_manifest_filename>",
      "bundle_manifest_filename": "<bundle_manifest_filename>"
    },
    "name": "build_sprite_runtime_bundle"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
columnsNo
hitbox_modeNocomponents
sheet_paddingNo
hitbox_paddingNo
input_filenameYes
sheet_filenameYes
min_component_pixelsNo
sheet_manifest_filenameYes
bundle_manifest_filenameYes
hitbox_manifest_filenameYes

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 does disclose one useful trait, 'deterministic', and indicates the bundle contains three artifacts, but it does not state whether files are written or overwritten, whether this is a pure build vs. an in-place mutation, or what side effects may occur. For a build/mutation-style tool without annotations, this 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single, tight sentence that front-loads the core purpose and key output contents. It contains no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name, making it both concise and useful.

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 the high parameter count (10), five required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this short description is not complete enough. An agent can grasp the high-level purpose, but cannot confidently determine how the required filenames map to inputs/outputs, how optional parameters affect the result, or what the tool returns. More operational context is needed.

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%, and the description adds very little about the 10 parameters. It does suggest that filenames relate to the animation sheet, timing manifest, and hitbox manifest, but it does not explain input_filename, columns, hitbox_mode, sheet_padding, hitbox_padding, or min_component_pixels. Parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description itself does not compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 names a specific verb ('Build') and a specific resource ('deterministic runtime bundle'), and clarifies the bundle's contents: animation sheet, timing manifest, and sprite hitbox manifest. It distinguishes itself from similar build/export tools like build_scene_bundle or export_spritesheet through the 'runtime bundle' framing, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like build_animation_sheet, build_scene_bundle, or export_spritesheet. There is no mention of prerequisites, intended use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer applicability from the tool name and general phrasing.

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