Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
aseprite-mcp

aseprite-mcp

by shin2344234
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

get_palette

Read-only

Retrieve a sprite's color palette as '#rrggbbaa' hex values, starting at index 0, to inspect or reuse exact colors in pixel art workflows.

Instructions

Returns the sprite palette as '#rrggbbaa' colors (index 0 first).

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_palette"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
indexNo
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

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare this a safe read (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description usefully contributes the output format '#rrggbbaa' and ordering ('index 0 first'), but says nothing about live-vs-batch behavior or failure modes beyond what the schema's backend description provides.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that delivers purpose and return format with zero filler.

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 simple read-only getter with no output schema, stating the color format is the most important missing piece and it is present. However, the ambiguous index parameter and unstated relationship between returned indices and the index input leave a real gap.

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 67%; the sprite and backend params are documented in the schema, but index has no description. The description's '(index 0 first)' refers to the returned color ordering, not the index parameter, and with index minimum=1 the 0-vs-1 indexing distinction is left ambiguous.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Returns the sprite palette') and adds the return format, which cleanly separates it from set_palette, save_palette, and palette_edit. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no reference to alternatives such as get_sprite_info or palette_edit. Usage is only implied by the verb 'Returns'.

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