minecraft-skin-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

skin_preview

Read-only

Generate a front/back/left/right orthographic inspection image of a Minecraft skin PNG at native texel scale, with outer layers composited for texture review.

Instructions

Return a front/back/right/left orthographic image of a PNG inside the output root. Outer layers composite at native texel scale; this is an inspection sheet, not an in-game 3D rendering.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "skin_preview"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	Yes
`model`	No		classic

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 23, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavior detail: the result is a four-view orthographic inspection sheet, outer layers composite at native texel scale, and it is not a 3D rendering. It does not describe error behavior for invalid paths.

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?

Two compact sentences with no wasted language. The output shape is front-loaded, and the scale/rendering clarification follows immediately.

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 output artifact well enough for a read-only inspection tool with no output schema. However, it leaves gaps about path format (relative vs. absolute, extension expectations) and does not explain the model parameter.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. It partially documents 'path' by saying the PNG must be inside the output root, but it never mentions the 'model' parameter or the classic/slim distinction, leaving a key enum undocumented in prose.

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 verb and resource: returning front/back/right/left orthographic images of a PNG inside the output root. It also clarifies the artifact type ('inspection sheet, not an in-game 3D rendering'), which cleanly separates it from siblings like skin_build and skin_validate.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied by 'inspection sheet' and 'inside the output root', but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over skin_validate or other siblings. The exclusion of 'in-game 3D rendering' clarifies scope, not when to use an alternative tool.

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

Deploy Server