Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Aseprite Asset MCP

Aseprite Asset MCP

by jdsalasca
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

rotate_layer

Rotate a layer's cel in an Aseprite file by 90, 180, or 270 degrees clockwise. Specify the file, layer, and frame to apply the rotation.

Instructions

Rotate a layer cel 90, 180, or 270 degrees clockwise.

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>",
      "frame_index": "<frame_index>"
    },
    "name": "rotate_layer"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
angleNo
filenameYes
layer_nameYes
frame_indexYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
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 only states the rotation action but does not mention whether the operation modifies the cel in place, is reversible, requires specific permissions, or returns any value. For a mutation tool, 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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and allowed angles with zero waste. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 tool has 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what happens to the cel (e.g., in-place mutation), how 'frame_index' relates to the cel, or any side effects. An agent would need to infer too much to call it correctly.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'angle' parameter implicitly by listing allowed values, but does not clarify 'filename', 'layer_name', or 'frame_index' beyond their obvious names. The description adds minimal value over the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('rotate'), resource ('layer cel'), and allowed angles (90, 180, 270 degrees clockwise). It clearly distinguishes from sibling 'flip_layer' and other transform tools.

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 usage for rotating a layer cel but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like 'flip_layer' or other geometry tools. It provides no exclusions or prerequisites, but the context is clear enough for a simple operation.

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