rust.wiki

A Skin Lab 3D viewer link for one item or skin

skinlab_link

Read-onlyIdempotent

A Skin Lab 3D viewer link for one item or skin. Answers "can I see this skin in 3D?". With a known item and a processed skin: available_in_3d: true, the viewer_url that opens rust.wiki/skin-lab with it on, and embed ({o, mode} - the same piece the "View in 3D" card on the item and skin pages loads). A real skin that has no 3D textures yet gives available_in_3d: false with the reason and a fallback_url showing the item's default look. Unknown items are 404 with suggestions. Use when someone asks to SEE a skin or item: returns a rust.wiki/skin-lab link that opens it in 3D (available_in_3d=false says why not, with a fallback link). Share viewer_url with the user.

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": "skinlab_link"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`item`	No	Item shortname or name. Optional when `skin` is an itemdefid.
`mode`	No	`outfit` (on the player), `weapon` (the item on its own) or `pov` (first person, guns and tools). Default: `outfit` for worn items, `weapon` otherwise.
`skin`	No	Skin itemdefid or name (default look when left out).
`attachments`	No	Guns only: comma-separated attachment shortnames, e.g. `weapon.mod.holosight,weapon.mod.silencer`.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 14, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the read-only and idempotent annotations, the description discloses useful behavior: successful responses include available_in_3d, viewer_url, and embed; skins without 3D textures return available_in_3d=false with a reason and fallback_url; unknown items return 404 with suggestions. This adds substantial operational context for a safe read-only link generator.

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 front-loaded and mostly well structured, moving from purpose to success behavior to failure behavior to usage guidance. It is somewhat repetitive in restating the viewer link and fallback behavior, but the redundancy is mild and every core idea contributes.

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

Completeness5/5

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

There is no output schema, but the description thoroughly describes the relevant return fields and failure cases: available_in_3d, viewer_url, embed, fallback_url, and 404 suggestions. Combined with the fully documented input schema and safe annotations, this is complete enough for an agent to call and explain the result.

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 item, skin, mode, and attachments are already documented in the schema. The description mentions item/skin usage at a high level but does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, which matches the baseline 3.

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 states a specific resource and outcome: a Skin Lab 3D viewer link for one item or skin, answering 'can I see this skin in 3D?'. It clearly distinguishes this from merely fetching item or skin data by describing the returned viewer_url, embed, availability flag, and fallback behavior.

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 an explicit usage trigger: 'Use when someone asks to SEE a skin or item.' That is strong when-to-use guidance, but it does not name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a full 5.

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

All rust.wiki tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?