SpriteMCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

list_outfit_slot_specs

List the 10 fixed structural layer names for pixel character outfits, each with its pose parent and body parts, to define outfit slot specifications.

Instructions

Structural design layers = the 10 EXPORT_LAYER_NAMES (no style presets).

Same names as base/layers/: upper_arm_far, lower_arm_far, upper_leg_far, lower_leg_far, torso, head, upper_leg_near, lower_leg_near, upper_arm_near, lower_arm_near (lower_* includes hand/foot). Each layer has a single pose parent and body_parts for paint/ref underlay. Conceptual notes (jingasa/do/hakama) map onto these keys — paint targets are always the 10 layer files. Every layer allows overhang.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 25, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses meaningful traits: no style presets, exact layer names, pose-parent structure, body_parts underlay usage, paint targets always being the 10 layer files, and per-layer overhang allowance. This goes well beyond the tool name.

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 compact and information-dense, with a useful lead statement followed by concrete enumeration of the layer names and key structural properties. The long name list is necessary content, and there is no filler.

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 zero-parameter list/query tool, the description covers the essential domain context: what slots are, their names, their internal structure, and constraints like overhang and paint targeting. It could be more complete by explicitly stating return shape, but an output schema exists to cover that.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics to document. Baseline 4 is appropriate because the description focuses entirely on what the returned specs represent.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The name says 'list outfit slot specs' and the description explains that these specs are the 10 structural design layers, explicitly naming them and noting there are no style presets. This is clear enough for an agent to know the tool is about retrieving/describing outfit slot layer structure, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling list_outfit_layers.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no guidance about when to use this tool instead of related tools like list_outfit_layers, generate_outfit_slot, or prepare_outfit_slot_reference. The description only states facts about layers; it does not say when this tool is the right choice.

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