Skip to main content
Glama
shin2344234

aseprite-mcp

by shin2344234
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

update_slice

Modify slice properties such as bounds, pivot, and color in Aseprite sprites, supporting both live editing and batch processing.

Instructions

Changes a slice.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataNo
nameNo
saveNoBatch mode: write changes back to the sprite file (default true)
colorNo'#rrggbb', '#rrggbbaa', a name, a palette index, or {r,g,b,a} / {h,s,v,a} / {h,s,l,a} / {gray,a}
pivotNoPivot relative to the slice; false removes it
sliceYes
boundsNo
centerNo9-slice center, relative to the slice; false removes it
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
propertiesNoUser-defined properties to set (object.properties)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

D1.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety is partially covered. However, the description adds nothing about what gets modified, whether changes persist, or the live-vs-batch distinction. For a mutation tool with zero added context, this leaves important behavior undisclosed.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

Three words is technically concise, but this is under-specification rather than economy. Nothing is front-loaded because there is essentially no content to structure.

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

Completeness1/5

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

An 11-parameter mutation tool with nested objects, no output schema, and 64% schema coverage demands far more description than one sentence. The agent lacks the context needed to call this correctly.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is only 64%, below the 80% threshold where a baseline of 3 would apply. The description mentions no parameters at all, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented parameters (slice, data, name, bounds are bare).

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

Purpose2/5

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

"Changes a slice" is essentially a restatement of the tool name update_slice. It names the resource but gives no indication of what aspects are changed or how it differs from add_slice/delete_slice beyond the obvious. This is tautology territory per the rubric.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as add_slice or delete_slice. The agent must infer the tool's role purely from the name.

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