Close an open Aseprite sprite in live mode. Use it to finish editing a file or tab, optionally saving or discarding changes before closing.
Closes an open sprite (live mode).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| save | No | ||
| sprite | No | File path, open tab title, or sprite id. Defaults to the active sprite (live). Batch mode needs a file path. | |
| backend | No | auto (default): live Aseprite if connected, else headless batch | |
| discardChanges | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered. However, the description does not disclose the important behavioral facts: what happens to unsaved changes, how save/discardChanges interact, or how the batch backend differs from live. For a destructive close operation this is a meaningful gap.
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?
It is a single short sentence with no padding, which is good for front-loading, but the parenthetical qualifier is arguably misleading rather than earning its place. Brevity here reflects under-specification more than disciplined conciseness.
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 zero-required, four-parameter destructive operation with no output schema, the description omits the data-loss semantics and backend-dependent behavior an agent needs to call it safely. It is not complete enough to invoke confidently without inspecting the schema.
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 only 50%, with save and discardChanges undocumented in both schema and description, and the description adds no parameter meaning at all. It fails to compensate for the coverage gap on the two parameters that determine whether closing destroys work.
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 states a specific verb and resource ("Closes an open sprite") that an agent can readily distinguish from open_sprite and save_sprite. The "(live mode)" qualifier is ambiguous though, since the schema's backend enum supports auto/live/batch, implying the scope is narrower or different than the tool actually is.
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?
There is no indication of when to choose this tool versus save_sprite or open_sprite, nor any prerequisite or exclusion guidance. The only contextual hint is the trailing "(live mode)", which is not elaborated and is muddled by the backend enum.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.