Aseprite Asset MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

duplicate_layer

Copy a layer and its cels across all frames in an Aseprite file. Provide the layer name and an optional new name to duplicate it while keeping the original intact.

Instructions

Duplicate a layer and its cels across all frames.

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": "duplicate_layer"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`group`	No
`filename`	Yes
`new_name`	No
`layer_name`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Sep 21, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but only states the core duplication behavior. It does not explain how new_name or group affect the duplicate, where the new layer is inserted, whether hidden/empty cels are included, or what errors or side effects may occur.

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, easily scannable sentence with no filler words. It is concise, though it achieves this by omitting important behavioral and parameter context.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and four undocumented parameters, a one-sentence description is not sufficient for an agent to call this tool correctly with confidence. Missing parameter semantics and side-effect details are material gaps.

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 mentions no parameters. The four parameters are left entirely to inference from their names and defaults, with new_name defaulting to '' being especially vague. The description must compensate for the missing schema descriptions but does not.

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 concrete action ('Duplicate') on a specific resource ('a layer and its cels') and scopes it across all frames. This is clear and helps distinguish it from frame/cel-level tools like copy_frame and duplicate_frame_range, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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 on when to use duplicate_layer versus copy_cel, copy_frame, duplicate_frame_range, or copy_layers_between_sprites. The phrase 'across all frames' implies a whole-layer operation, but there are no explicit when-to-use conditions or exclusions.

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

Deploy Server