Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
aseprite-mcp

aseprite-mcp

by shin2344234
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

save_palette

Export a sprite's color palette to files such as .gpl, .pal, .act, .png, .ase, or .hex for reuse or backup.

Instructions

Saves the sprite palette to a file (.gpl, .pal, .act, .png, .ase, .hex...).

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": {
      "file": "<file>"
    },
    "name": "save_palette"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fileYes
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 declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which the description does not contradict. Beyond that it only adds the format list; it says nothing about whether an existing file is overwritten, what the return value is, or backend-mode caveats (again only in the schema).

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 with no filler; the verb and the destination are the first things read.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description never says what is returned or that writing may overwrite a file. The schema carries the sprite/backend semantics, but overwrite behavior and return shape are missing for a file-writing tool.

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%, and the schema already explains 'sprite' (path/tab/id, default active) and 'backend' (auto/live/batch). The description contributes only the format enumeration, which implicitly constrains the required 'file' extension but adds no syntax or default detail beyond the schema.

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 ('Saves the sprite palette to a file') and enumerates supported formats, so the operation is unambiguous. It is distinguishable from siblings like get_palette/set_palette by the explicit 'to a file' phrasing, though it never names those alternatives.

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 indication of when to use this versus get_palette, set_palette, palette_edit, or export/export_sprite_sheet. The only guidance (batch mode needs a file path) lives in the schema, not the description.

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