mib2c-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Check before saving

check_skin

Read-only

Checks edited zone files for head-unit load issues and flags touch areas outside images or too small to press to prevent screen-breaking errors.

Instructions

Checks the edited zone files (and the one shown): whether the head unit loads each file, and points or touch areas that reach outside their picture or are too small to press. Errors would break the screen on the unit; warnings are worth a look.

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": "check_skin"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.0Nov 7, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe, non-mutating check. The description adds substantive behavior beyond that: it explains that files are checked for head-unit loading, points or touch areas outside the picture, and touch targets that are too small, and it distinguishes errors from warnings.

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 front-loads the validation target before explaining criteria and severity. The parenthetical and dense clause are slightly awkward but every sentence contributes useful information.

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, read-only validator with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, validation criteria, and the error-versus-warning distinction. It does not describe the exact return shape or whether all edited files versus only the current one are inspected, but it is sufficient to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

There are zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter semantics burden. The description appropriately does not discuss parameters.

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 description uses a specific verb ('Checks') and resource ('edited zone files'), and explains the validation criteria. It does not explicitly name the sibling 'save' tool as the alternative in the description body, but the title 'Check before saving' helps distinguish the pre-save validation purpose.

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?

The title 'Check before saving' and the description's focus on edited zone files that could break the screen provide clear pre-save usage context. It stops short of explicitly stating when not to use it or naming alternatives in the description body.

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