Toggle visibility of a named layer in an Aseprite file. Use to show or hide layers for editing or export.
Set layer visibility by name.
Args: filename: Name of the Aseprite file to modify layer_name: Layer name to target visible: Whether the layer should be visible
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| visible | No | ||
| filename | Yes | ||
| layer_name | 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 bears full burden. It fails to disclose what happens if the layer does not exist, whether changes are reversible, or any side effects. The description is minimal and does not add context about behavior beyond the action itself.
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 concise and structured as a docstring with an Args section. It is front-loaded with the key purpose. However, it could be equally concise while including more useful detail.
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?
Given the tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values or error conditions, nor what happens when the layer is not found. The visible parameter default is true, but this is not explained.
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 description coverage is 0% (no descriptions in the JSON schema). The description gives one-line explanations for each parameter (e.g., 'Name of the Aseprite file to modify'), which adds some meaning beyond the titles, but it does not compensate for the lack of schema descriptions. The explanations are minimal and do not clarify details like the format of filename or expected layer name.
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 'Set layer visibility by name', which is a specific verb (set) and resource (layer visibility) with scope (by name). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like set_layer_blend_mode and set_layer_opacity.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as whether the layer must exist, or when not to use it. The sibling list includes many layer-related tools, but no differentiation is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.