Returns the complete design JSON schema and canonical UV face sizes for 64×64 Minecraft skins, letting you pick the classic or slim model before building.
Return complete design JSON schema and canonical UV face sizes. Faces are viewed externally; left/right name the character's side. Top face local top is back edge; bottom local top is front edge.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| model | No | classic |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does 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 output semantics about faces being viewed externally and the local top edge conventions for top/bottom faces, which is meaningful context beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by compact orientation clarifications. Each sentence adds either purpose or coordinate semantics, with no redundant filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, the description must convey return behavior; it names the returned artifacts and orientation conventions. However, it omits how the model parameter changes output and does not describe the design JSON structure, leaving a notable gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter, model, has 0% schema description coverage; its enum values classic/slim are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description never mentions the parameter or explains how model affects the returned schema or UV sizes. It does not compensate for the documentation gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb ('Return') and resources ('design JSON schema and canonical UV face sizes'), plus orientation semantics. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings skin_build, skin_validate, or skin_preview, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and never mentions the sibling tools. The purpose implies retrieval of schema/UV sizes, but the agent must infer when this tool is preferable to skin_build, skin_validate, or skin_preview.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.