Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
aseprite-mcp

aseprite-mcp

by shin2344234
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

list_preferences

Read-only

List Aseprite preference sections and options from pref.xml to inspect available settings before updating them with the preferences tool.

Instructions

Lists Aseprite preference sections and options (from pref.xml) for use with the preferences tool.

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": "list_preferences"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sectionNoOnly this section, e.g. 'grid' or 'tool_box'

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description adds that data comes from pref.xml, a useful provenance detail, but does not cover return format or the discovery-then-set workflow. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 tight sentence with no filler, front-loading the verb and resource. Every clause earns its place.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple read-only list with no output schema, the description is sufficient: it says what is listed and where it comes from, and annotations carry the safety profile. Only the lack of any note on result structure or the follow-up workflow keeps it from a 5.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the single 'section' filter is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, making the baseline 3 correct.

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+resource: lists Aseprite preference sections and options, and names the source (pref.xml). It points to the companion 'preferences' tool, which differentiates it somewhat from that sibling, though it doesn't contrast against other list_* tools.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The phrase 'for use with the preferences tool' implies this is a discovery step preceding the mutation tool, which is useful context. But it never states when to call it versus alternatives or when it is not needed, leaving usage largely implied.

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