Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
aseprite-mcp

aseprite-mcp

by shin2344234
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

status

Read-only

Check which Aseprite executable and version are active, and confirm whether a live Aseprite is connected to the bridge.

Instructions

Shows the Aseprite executable in use, its version, and whether a live Aseprite is connected to the bridge.

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": "status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes this is a safe read, so the annotation carries the safety profile. With no output schema, the description usefully adds what the tool probes and reports back (executable, version, live connection state via the bridge), including the notion of a disconnected case.

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 sentence with no filler, front-loading the verb and the three reported facts. 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 no-argument, read-only tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains the returned content. A minor gap is that it does not say what the agent should expect when no Aseprite instance is running beyond implying a negative connection status.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case; there is no parameter surface for the description to clarify or compensate for. Nothing misleading is stated about inputs.

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?

Names a concrete verb ("Shows") plus three specific resources: the Aseprite executable path, its version, and live bridge connectivity. This is clearly distinguishable from action siblings like launch_aseprite or run_command. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from the overlapping-sounding app_state sibling.

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 guidance on when to call this versus app_state, list_preferences, or the other diagnostic/state tools in the sibling list. The purpose implicitly suggests a diagnostic check, but nothing tells the agent which of several state-inspection tools to pick.

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