Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Aseprite Asset MCP

Aseprite Asset MCP

by jdsalasca
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

export_layers

Exports each layer of an Aseprite file as a PNG to a specified directory, verifying that at least one layer file is written.

Instructions

Export each layer as a PNG and confirm that at least one new layer file was written.

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>",
      "output_directory": "<output_directory>"
    },
    "name": "export_layers"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
filenameYes
include_hiddenNo
output_directoryYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that PNG files are written and that confirmation requires at least one new layer file to be written. However, it omits details such as overwrite behavior, file naming, handling of hidden layers, or what happens when no layers are exportable.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, front-loading the core action and then the confirmation behavior. Slightly more detail could be added without harming conciseness.

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 filesystem-writing tool with three parameters and no annotations or output schema, this is too sparse. It leaves parameter semantics, return shape, and failure behavior unspecified.

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 provides no meaning for filename, output_directory, or include_hidden. There is no compensation for the missing parameter 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?

States a specific action and resource: 'Export each layer as a PNG' and adds an explicit verification outcome. The layer-level granularity differentiates it from siblings like export_spritesheet or export_frame, though it doesn't name them.

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 versus the many sibling export tools. It does not state exclusions or alternatives.

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