Skip to main content
Glama
sloplink

aseprite-mcp

by sloplink
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

Draw with a tool

aseprite_draw

Draw and edit pixels in Aseprite by applying tools such as pencil, shapes, paint bucket, and gradient with configurable brush size, color, layer, and frame.

Instructions

Uses an Aseprite tool like a mouse stroke. line/rectangle/filled_rectangle/ellipse/filled_ellipse take 2 points (start, end; inclusive). pencil/eraser/spray take any number of points (freehand path). paint_bucket takes 1 point. curve takes 4 points. polygon/contour take the corner points.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sizeNoBrush size
toolYes
colorNohex color#000000
frameNoFrame number, 1-based (default: active frame)
layerNoLayer name (default: active layer)
pointsYesList of [x, y]
opacityNo
brushTypeNocircle
toleranceNopaint_bucket only
contiguousNopaint_bucket only
pixelPerfectNoPixel-perfect freehand for pencil

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed10 schema fields changedv0.6.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / color / description
      Previous value: -"Hex color: #rgb, #rgba, #rrggbb or #rrggbbaa"New value: +"hex color"
    • removedInput schema / properties / color / pattern
      Removed value: -"^#?([0-9a-fA-F]{3}|[0-9a-fA-F]{4}|[0-9a-fA-F]{6}|[0-9a-fA-F]{8})$"
    • removedInput schema / properties / frame / maximum
      Removed value: -9007199254740991
    • changedInput schema / properties / frame / type
      Previous value: -"integer"New value: +"number"
    • changedInput schema / properties / opacity / type
      Previous value: -"integer"New value: +"number"
    • removedInput schema / properties / points / items / additionalItems
      Removed value: -false
    • addedInput schema / properties / points / items / description
      Added value: +"[x, y]"
    • changedInput schema / properties / points / items / items
      Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "maximum": 9007199254740991,
-    "minimum": -9007199254740991,
-    "type": "integer"
-  },
-  {
-    "maximum": 9007199254740991,
-    "minimum": -9007199254740991,
-    "type": "integer"
-  }
-]New value: +{
+  "type": "number"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / size / type
      Previous value: -"integer"New value: +"number"
    • changedInput schema / properties / tolerance / type
      Previous value: -"integer"New value: +"number"
  2. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the point-count behavior for each tool type, which is useful. However, it doesn't mention side effects like whether drawing replaces existing pixels, whether it modifies the active layer/frame, or whether it's destructive. The description adds some behavioral context but not comprehensive.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then lists tool-specific point requirements. It's efficient with no wasted words, though the long list of tool names makes it slightly dense. The structure is logical: purpose first, then per-tool details.

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?

The description covers the essential point-count semantics for each tool, which is the most complex aspect. However, it doesn't mention return values (no output schema), error conditions, or interaction with layers/frames. Given the tool's complexity (11 parameters, 13 tool types), the description is adequate but not fully complete.

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?

Schema coverage is 73%, and the description adds significant meaning beyond the schema by explaining how the 'points' parameter varies per tool. It clarifies that line/rectangle/ellipse take 2 points, freehand tools take any number, paint_bucket takes 1, curve takes 4, and polygon/contour take corners. This is valuable semantic information not present in the schema's generic 'List of [x, y]' description.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: using an Aseprite tool like a mouse stroke. It enumerates the specific tools and their point requirements, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like aseprite_set_pixels or aseprite_pixel_map. The verb 'draw' and resource 'Aseprite tool' are specific and unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides clear context on how to use the tool by specifying the number of points required for each tool type. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the detailed point requirements serve as implicit usage guidance. The sibling list shows related tools, but the description doesn't explicitly route to them.

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