Retrieve sprite metadata from an Aseprite file, including size, color mode, frame durations, layers, and tags, as a JSON string.
Return sprite info as JSON string (size, color mode, frame durations, layers, tags).
Args: filename: Name of the Aseprite file to inspect
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filename | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It indicates a read operation (returning info), but does not mention error handling, file existence prerequisites, or permission needs. The description is adequate for a simple read but lacks deeper transparency.
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?
The description is extremely concise: one sentence for purpose and one for parameter. Every word is valuable, and the key information is front-loaded.
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?
For a simple read tool with no output schema, the description lists the fields returned but does not specify the JSON structure or format in detail. It is adequate for an agent to understand the output, but more detail on the exact schema would improve completeness.
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?
The only parameter 'filename' has a clear description ('Name of the Aseprite file to inspect') that adds meaning beyond the schema's type-only definition. Since schema coverage is 0%, the tool description compensates well.
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?
The description clearly states it returns sprite info as a JSON string with specific fields (size, color mode, etc.). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that are primarily for creation or modification.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it's implicitly a read-only informational tool, the description does not direct the agent on when to choose it over other tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.