aseprite-ai-artist

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Animation tags

tag

Destructive

Manage animation tags by creating, updating, listing, or deleting named frame ranges on a sprite, ensuring game engines can reference animations like 'idle', 'walk', or 'attack'.

Instructions

Manage animation tags — the named frame ranges a game engine imports as 'idle', 'walk', 'attack'. Ops: 'list', 'create', 'update', 'delete'. Tag every cycle before export; an untagged spritesheet is a pile of frames the engine cannot address.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`op`	Yes
`to`	No	Last frame, 1-based, inclusive.
`from`	No	First frame, 1-based, inclusive.
`name`	No
`color`	No	Tag colour in the timeline, #rrggbb.
`sprite`	No	Which sprite: its id as '#7' (what every result reports back, and the only unambiguous form — two unsaved documents are both called 'Sprite'), its filename, or its display name. Omit to use the sprite Aseprite has focused.
`newName`	No
`repeats`	No	Loop count; 0 means forever.
`direction`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`tags`	Yes
`sprite`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedv0.1.6Sep 9, 2026

removedInput schema / properties / repeat

Removed value: -{
-  "description": "0 means loop forever.",
-  "minimum": 0,
-  "type": "integer"
-}

addedInput schema / properties / repeats

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Loop count; 0 means forever.",
+  "minimum": 0,
+  "type": "integer"
+}

changedInput schema / properties / sprite / description

Previous value: -"Sprite filename or id. Omit to use the sprite Aseprite has focused."New value: +"Which sprite: its id as '#7' (what every result reports back, and the only unambiguous form — two unsaved documents are both called 'Sprite'), its filename, or its display name. Omit to use the sprite Aseprite has focused."

First observedv0.1.0Sep 8, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent is aware this can modify state. The description adds that untagged spritesheets are unusable by the engine, but it does not disclose behavioral details such as immediate persistence or side effects of update/delete. This is adequate but not rich.

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?

The description is compact, front-loaded with the core concept, and every sentence earns its place. The first sentence defines the resource and operations, and the second gives a practical workflow warning without padding.

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 what tags are and why they matter, and the schema provides parameter details. However, it does not clarify which parameters are required for each operation (e.g., create vs. delete vs. update), which is a notable gap for correct invocation. Output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not the missing piece.

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?

The schema already documents several parameters (from, to, color, sprite, repeats), while 'name' and 'newName' benefit only from the description's 'named frame ranges' context. With 56% schema coverage, the description adds some conceptual meaning but does not fully compensate for the undocumented parameters or op-specific requirements.

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?

The description clearly states the tool manages animation tags (named frame ranges) and enumerates the supported operations: list, create, update, delete. It uses concrete examples like 'idle', 'walk', 'attack' to make the resource unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but the resource and examples make the purpose clear.

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 gives a clear workflow cue: 'Tag every cycle before export', and explains why tagging matters. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or point to alternatives among the siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server