Validate Blender mesh skin weights before rigging or export: detect unweighted vertices, too many bone influences, non-normalized weights, orphan groups, and missing Armature modifiers.
Skin quality: vertices without weight, with more than max_influences bones (glTF wants 4), weights that do not
sum to 1, groups that match no bone, a missing Armature modifier.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mesh | Yes | ||
| max_influences | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this as a safe, read-only, closed-world operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value by listing the failure conditions it detects, but says nothing about what the result looks like (report, list of offending vertices, pass/fail) or how severe each finding is, which matters for a tool with no output schema.
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?
A single front-loaded fragment beginning with 'Skin quality:' followed by a tight list of checks. Every clause carries information and nothing is padded, though the sentence fragment style is less readable than a complete sentence would be.
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?
For a two-parameter read-only diagnostic with no output schema, the description covers what is checked but not what the agent receives or what to do next. Given sibling tools like transfer_weights, bind, and repair_mesh exist, a hint about remediation after a failed check would round it out.
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 carries the burden. It explains max_influences indirectly by noting the glTF target of 4 bones, which clarifies the threshold's purpose, but the required 'mesh' parameter is not described at all (e.g., whether it takes an object name or a mesh datablock).
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?
The description names a specific resource (skin weights) and enumerates exactly what is inspected: unweighted vertices, excess bone influences, non-normalized weights, orphan vertex groups, and a missing Armature modifier. That is far more concrete than a generic 'check' tool, though it never names how it differs from nearby diagnostics like check_mesh or check_game_ready.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use statement and no named alternative. The parenthetical 'glTF wants 4' faintly implies a pre-export validation context, but the agent is left to infer that this is a pre-export or post-bind quality gate rather than being told.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.