Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Aseprite MCP Tools

Aseprite MCP Tools

by midarikawa
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

export_sprite

Export an Aseprite file to PNG, GIF, JPG, or another format by specifying the source file, output filename, and desired format.

Instructions

Export the Aseprite file to another format.

Args: filename: Name of the Aseprite file to export output_filename: Name of the output file format: Output format (default: "png", can be "png", "gif", "jpg", etc.)

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_filename": "<output_filename>"
    },
    "name": "export_sprite"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
formatNopng
filenameYes
output_filenameYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided; the description lacks behavioral details such as whether the original file is modified, overwriting behavior, or error handling. It only mentions the export function and allowed formats.

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 concise with a single sentence followed by a bulleted parameter list. No unnecessary information, front-loaded with the main action.

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?

While the description covers parameters adequately for a simple export, it lacks output format details, usage context, and behavioral notes. Given no output schema and no annotations, it is minimally complete but could be more thorough.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by explaining each parameter: filename, output_filename, and format (with default and examples). This adds meaningful context beyond the schema titles.

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 clearly states the tool exports an Aseprite file to another format using the verb 'Export'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like export_frame, export_layers, and export_spritesheet by targeting the entire sprite file.

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 other export tools (e.g., export_frame, export_layers). The description only states what it does, not when or when not to use it.

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