ase_copy_selectionCopies selected pixels from a sprite to the server clipboard while preserving the original sprite. Specify sprite path, frame, and layer to capture the active selection.
Copy the selected pixels to the server clipboard (keeps sprite intact).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| frame | No | ||
| layer | No | ||
| sprite_path | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It clearly discloses the side effect (server clipboard gets the pixels) and the non-destructive nature (sprite intact), which are the main behaviors. It doesn't mention clipboard overwrite or failure modes, but for a simple copy action the core transparency is present.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence with no filler, key action and caveat at front. Well structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple and has an output schema, but the description omits parameter semantics and usage guidance needed given 0% schema coverage. It assumes the agent already knows an active selection exists and understands frame/layer contexts.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning for frame, layer, or sprite_path. An agent cannot tell from the description how frame/layer affect what is copied or whether layer can be null. This is the biggest gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb ('Copy'), resource ('selected pixels' to 'server clipboard'), and explicitly notes the sprite is left intact, which differentiates it from ase_cut_selection. The key behavior is front-loaded.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies copying for duplication because it notes the sprite remains intact, but it never says when to prefer this over ase_cut_selection or how paste_clipboard consumes the clipboard. No explicit conditions or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.