Validate mesh skin weights before rigging or glTF export by detecting unweighted vertices, too many bone influences, non-normalized sums, 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses exactly what it checks, which is the core behavior of a diagnostic tool, and 'check' implies read-only. However, it does not state whether it modifies anything, whether it requires specific permissions, or what the return format looks like.
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 dense sentence that front-loads the category ('Skin quality') and then lists the specific issues. It is efficient, though the list-like structure is somewhat run-on and could be slightly clearer.
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 check tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what is checked but does not describe the return format or how results are reported. It is adequate for an agent to understand the tool's scope but leaves gaps about the output.
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. It mentions `max_influences` and explains its meaning ('glTF wants 4'), but provides no documentation for the required `mesh` parameter. The partial coverage of one of two parameters leaves a gap.
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 explicitly enumerates the specific skin-weight issues the tool detects (unweighted vertices, excess influences, non-normalized weights, orphan groups, missing Armature modifier). This is a clear verb+resource for a validation tool, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling checks 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?
No guidance is given on when to run this tool versus alternatives or prerequisites. It is implied that it is used for skinning validation, but there are no explicit when/when-not statements or references to sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.