Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Aseprite Asset MCP

Aseprite Asset MCP

by jdsalasca
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

delete_slice

Delete a named slice from a specified Aseprite file to remove unwanted sprite regions and clean up asset definitions.

Instructions

Delete a named slice.

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>",
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "delete_slice"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes
filenameYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'delete' and does not state whether the change is persistent, whether it removes only slice metadata while leaving pixels intact, or what happens if the named slice does not exist. It is at least clearly destructive, avoiding a score of 1.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is concise and immediately readable, though it borders on being too terse to fully support selection and invocation.

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 destructive, two-parameter operation with no annotations and no output schema, this description is too thin. It omits side effects, file-scoping semantics, error behavior, and return values. An agent could attempt the call, but cannot confidently predict the consequences.

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 only hints at the 'name' parameter by saying the slice is named. It does not explain 'filename' or how filename and name together identify the slice, so it fails to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Delete a named slice.' The word 'named' clarifies that the slice is targeted by identifier, and 'slice' distinguishes this from sibling delete_* operations like delete_layer, delete_frame, and delete_tag. It is not a full tautology, but it does not explain what a slice is or explicitly differentiate it from related operations.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_slices, create_slice, or delete_tag. The only implied usage is the imperative 'Delete,' and no exclusions or prerequisites 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