Create a new skin or outfit for a Spine skeleton, optionally copying attachments from an existing skin, then add or replace attachments to customize it.
Create a skin (e.g. an outfit). Use copy_from to start from another skin's attachments,
then add or replace attachments with spine_add_attachment(skin=name).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| project | Yes | ||
| copy_from | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden for a mutation tool. It says it creates a skin and can copy attachments, but does not disclose duplicate-name behavior, overwrite semantics, persistence/side effects, or permission requirements.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a useful workflow note. Every sentence adds value with no repetition or 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?
The output schema exists, so return values need not be described. The core create-and-copy workflow is present, but the description is incomplete for a mutation tool with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage because it omits the required `project` parameter's meaning and key failure/side-effect behavior.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for all three parameters. It explains `copy_from` reasonably and implies `name` is the skin name via spine_add_attachment(skin=name), but leaves the required `project` parameter unexplained and does not fully define naming or copy behavior.
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 and resource: "Create a skin" with an example ("e.g. an outfit"). It distinguishes the skin-creation step from attachment work by naming spine_add_attachment, though it does not explicitly contrast with other sibling add/update tools.
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?
Gives useful workflow guidance: use `copy_from` to start from another skin's attachments and then use spine_add_attachment(skin=name) to add or replace attachments. However, it does not state broader when-to-use conditions, prerequisites such as project existence, or when not to create a new skin.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.