Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
aseprite-mcp

aseprite-mcp

by shin2344234
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

delete_tag

Destructive

Remove a tag from an Aseprite sprite while keeping its frames, optionally saving changes in live or batch mode.

Instructions

Deletes a tag (frames are kept).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "tag": "<tag>"
    },
    "name": "delete_tag"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tagYes
saveNoBatch mode: write changes back to the sprite file (default true)
spriteNoFile path, open tab title, or sprite id. Defaults to the active sprite (live). Batch mode needs a file path.
backendNoauto (default): live Aseprite if connected, else headless batch

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the one piece of context annotations cannot convey: the destruction is scoped to the tag metadata only and frames are retained. It says nothing about idempotency when the tag is absent or undo behavior, but the key "what gets destroyed" fact is stated.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One short sentence with the critical scope qualifier front-loaded in parentheses. Every word earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the essential scope of deletion but omits behavior on a missing tag, undo/rollback expectations, and any note that batch mode requires a file path (only in the sprite schema description). Adequate but with clear gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 75% and save/sprite/backend carry their own descriptions, so the schema does most of the work. However, the required 'tag' parameter has no description and accepts string or integer without the description clarifying whether it is a name or an id, leaving a real ambiguity unaddressed.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ("Deletes a tag") with an immediate scope clarification, which cleanly separates it from add_tag, update_tag, and the frame/layer deletion siblings. It does not name a sibling for disambiguation, but the resource is unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this versus update_tag (e.g. renaming a tag) or whether prerequisites exist. The agent must infer the use case purely from the verb and noun.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools