Read dimensions, layers, frames, animation tags, and palette from an .aseprite or image file to understand its structure before editing or exporting.
Inspect an existing sprite file (.aseprite or image) to read dimensions, layers, frames, animation tags, and palette.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filepath | Yes | Path to the sprite file |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Inspect' weakly implies a read-only, side-effect-free operation, but this is never stated, and there is no mention of error behavior for missing/invalid files or whether the file is locked or opened.
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?
One front-loaded sentence with zero filler that names the action, the target, and the returned data.
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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, enumerating the returned fields (dimensions, layers, frames, tags, palette) is genuinely useful. The main omission is guidance versus aseprite_get_info, which the description never addresses.
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 100% and the single filepath param is already documented. The description does add accepted input formats (.aseprite or image) beyond the schema's generic 'Path to the sprite file', but nothing about path resolution or relative paths.
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?
Clear verb 'inspect' plus specific resource 'sprite file' and an enumeration of what is read (dimensions, layers, frames, tags, palette). However, it does not distinguish itself from the near-identical sibling aseprite_get_info, leaving ambiguity about which tool to pick.
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 when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives are given. The presence of a sibling named aseprite_get_info that plausibly does the same thing makes this omission a real gap for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.