Set the active frame in a specified Aseprite file using a 1-based index, so you can edit or inspect that exact animation frame.
Set the active frame by index (1-based).
Args: filename: Name of the Aseprite file to modify frame_index: Frame index starting at 1
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filename | Yes | ||
| frame_index | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full burden for disclosing behavior. It fails to mention side effects (e.g., changing current view), constraints on frame_index range, error handling for invalid inputs, or return value.
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-purpose sentence followed by clear parameter definitions. No unnecessary words or information.
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?
Adequate for a simple tool, but missing behavioral details like error behavior, state change permanence, and output. With no output schema, description should clarify what the tool returns.
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%, but description adds basic meaning per parameter: filename as file to modify and frame_index as index starting at 1. Lacks constraints like valid range or file state prerequisites.
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 explicitly states the tool sets the active frame by a 1-based index, using clear verb and resource. It distinguishes from frame-manipulation siblings like add_frame, delete_frame, and copy_frame.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as add_frame or set_frame_duration. The description provides no context about appropriate scenario or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.