Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Aseprite Asset MCP

Aseprite Asset MCP

by jdsalasca
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

get_tilemap_info

Retrieve tile size, tileset count, and map dimensions for a specified tilemap layer to inform asset planning and Godot integration.

Instructions

Read tile size, tileset count, and map dimensions.

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": "get_tilemap_info"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
filenameYes
layer_nameYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Read' clearly signals a non-mutating operation, which is valuable, but it does not disclose possible failure modes, return structure, or whether the information is per layer or for the whole tilemap.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. Every word contributes to conveying the tool's primary purpose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read tool with two obvious string parameters, the description is nearly sufficient, and listing the returned values compensates somewhat for the missing output schema. However, it leaves the exact role of layer_name ambiguous and offers no usage context, making it minimally viable rather than complete.

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 does not explain either parameter. The parameter names 'filename' and 'layer_name' are mildly self-explanatory, but the description does not clarify what layer_name refers to or what filename format/path is expected.

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 ('Read') and resource ('tilemap info'), and lists the concrete attributes returned: tile size, tileset count, and map dimensions. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling getter tools such as get_sprite_info.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies use when an agent needs tilemap-level metadata like tile size or dimensions, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. There are no exclusions or context clues about when another tool would be a better fit.

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