Skip to main content
Glama

validate_minecraft_texture

Read-only

Validate Minecraft sprite textures before shipping: checks square power-of-two frames, palette limits, seam quality, and .mcmeta sidecars for animations.

Instructions

Check a sprite against Minecraft's texture rules before it ships.

Always checks that frames are square and power-of-two. Optionally checks the declared
size, frame count and palette budget; if `tiling` is set, measures the wrap-around
seams of every frame; if `pack_root` is given, confirms an animated texture has its
``.png.mcmeta`` sidecar.

**The seam check** does not require the first and last columns to match - that is only
true of a texture with no variation, and would reject most real block art. It compares
the wrap transition against the texture's own interior column-to-column transitions and
reports the ratio, so a borderline verdict can be judged rather than taken on faith.
`warn_ratio` / `error_ratio` set where "suspect" and "seam" begin.

Returns a ``workflow_manifest.v1`` manifest (kind ``validation``) whose `validation`
block is ``{passed, checks, errors, warnings}``, plus per-frame seam measurements
under `tiling` when the seam check ran.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tilingNoDefault: false.
categoryNo
filenameYes
namespaceNoDefault: "minecraft".minecraft
pack_rootNo
warn_ratioNoDefault: 2.0.
error_ratioNoDefault: 4.0.
texture_nameNo
texture_sizeNo
expected_framesNo
max_palette_sizeNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.10.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare this a safe read (readOnlyHint true, openWorldHint false), so the bar is low, and the description still adds substantial behavioral context: it explains the seam-check methodology, why a naive first/last column match is wrong, how warn_ratio/error_ratio thresholds are interpreted, and what the returned manifest contains. This is unusually rich disclosure for a read-only tool.

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 content is front-loaded with the core purpose, then a compact list of always-on versus optional checks, then a focused explanation of the seam metric. The bolded seam paragraph is longer than strictly necessary but each sentence carries behavioral weight, so little is wasted.

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?

With no output schema and 11 parameters, the description carries heavy burden and does describe the return manifest shape ('validation' block with passed/checks/errors/warnings, plus per-frame seam measurements). It is nearly complete, missing only semantics for the identity/scope params (filename, category, namespace, texture_name).

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 36%, so the description must compensate, and it does for the most consequential params: the declared size, frame count and palette budget (texture_size, expected_frames, max_palette_size), tiling, pack_root, and the two ratio thresholds. It leaves filename, category, namespace and texture_name undocumented, so it is not fully complete.

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 ('Check a sprite against Minecraft's texture rules') and enumerates the exact invariants enforced (square power-of-two frames, declared size, frame count, palette budget, tiling seams, .mcmeta sidecar). This clearly separates it from sibling validators like validate_loop or validate_sprite_for_game_export, which target different rule sets.

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 context ('before it ships') and states precisely when each optional check activates: 'if `tiling` is set', 'if `pack_root` is given', and which checks are always-on versus conditional. It does not name an alternative validator to use instead, so it stops short of full when/when-not routing.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools