spriteship

Set an asset's runtime render intent

set_asset_runtime_intent

FREE and SYNCHRONOUS (no jobId — do not poll). Declare how an asset revision should be rendered at runtime: plain_image, particle_emitter, deformable_strip, repeat_fill, nine_slice or shader_effect. path_follow is accepted only for backward compatibility; do not set it on new assets. Draw and configure motion per placement in the level editor instead. The intent and its config flow into every engine export made AFTER this edit. Set tileIndex to target one tile of a tileset/staged asset.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`config`	No	Intent-specific config. Validated and clamped server-side; unknown keys are dropped.
`assetId`	Yes	Asset id or slug.
`tileIndex`	No	Target one tile (tileset/staged only).
`runtimeUse`	Yes	The render intent. plain_image clears any previous intent. path_follow is legacy-only; new path motion is authored per placement in the level editor.
`iterationId`	Yes	Revision (iteration) id to stamp.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 2, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / runtimeUse / description

Previous value: -"The render intent. plain_image clears any previous intent."New value: +"The render intent. plain_image clears any previous intent. path_follow is legacy-only; new path motion is authored per placement in the level editor."

First observedAug 14, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description reveals synchronous/no-job behavior, the effect on all later engine exports, and the legacy status of path_follow. It also documents that plain_image clears previous intent. None of this contradicts the readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false annotations.

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 a set of short, focused sentences with no filler. It front-loads the most critical call-shaping information—FREE and SYNCHRONOUS, no jobId—then covers purpose, allowed values, deprecation caveat, export effect, and tileIndex guidance efficiently.

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 synchronous mutation with five parameters, the description covers call mode, side effects, legacy handling, and conditional tile targeting. It does not enumerate per-intent config sub-fields or the exact success return, but the schema intentionally leaves config open and the tool has no output schema, so this is only a minor gap.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description mostly restates what the schema already provides: the runtimeUse enum, path_follow's legacy status, plain_image clearing previous intent, and tileIndex targeting a tileset/staged asset. It does not add meaningful new parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and object: 'Declare how an asset revision should be rendered at runtime,' then enumerates the accepted render-intent modes. This clearly separates it from sibling asset tools like set_asset_collision_body and makes the tool's scope 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?

It gives clear operational context, including that the call is synchronous and must not be polled, and that the intent flows into future engine exports. It also gives an explicit when-not for path_follow, directing users to author motion per placement in the level editor instead, though it does not contrast this tool with MCP sibling tools.

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

All spriteship tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, and the descriptions are extremely detailed with cross-references (e.g., animate_asset vs frame_animation vs generate_character_animation). A few pairs like reprocess_asset vs revise_asset could be confused initially, but their descriptions and use cases are explicit enough to prevent misselection.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., create_project, get_asset, cancel_job). Verbs are imperative and nouns are appropriately singular/plural, making the API predictable and readable.

Tool Count2/5

At 41 tools, the server is far beyond the 15-25 range considered reasonable for most APIs. While the domain is broad (project, assets, characters, animations, jobs, exports, credits), the sheer number creates a heavy surface that may overwhelm agents and suggests the API could be consolidated into higher-level operations.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers the full creative pipeline: project creation, asset/character generation, animation (both AI and frame-based), revisions, exports, and job management. Minor gaps include lack of delete operations for assets/characters/projects and no listing of all jobs, but these are not critical for the core workflow and are likely intentional for a generative art platform.

Resources

Need Help?