add_bonesAdds bones (groups) to a GeckoLib model so cubes can be animated, with unique names, parent links, pivots, and rotations; invalid entries create nothing.
Adds bones (groups). Only bones animate, so every GeckoLib cube goes in a bone. Start with one root bone, then body, head, legs... with pivots where the joints are. Names must be unique. Nothing is created if any entry is bad.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bones | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only mark this as a non-idempotent, non-destructive mutation; the description goes further by disclosing atomicity ("Nothing is created if any entry is bad") and a uniqueness constraint not present in the schema. It does not cover error reporting, partial-failure output, or the 512-bone ceiling, so it stops short of full behavioral disclosure.
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?
Four short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose before the domain rationale and constraints. Every clause carries information; the only mild redundancy is restating the group concept in parentheses.
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 mutation tool with nested object parameters and no output schema, the description covers structure, ordering, naming, and failure semantics well. It omits hierarchy rules (can a parent appear later? can cycles form?), the 512-entry limit, and what identifiers come back, which an agent building a rig would benefit from.
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?
Top-level schema description coverage is 0% for the single `bones` array, so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains that names must be unique and that pivots belong at joints. Nested schema descriptions already cover pivot, parent, and rotation meaning, so the added value is the uniqueness rule plus the joint-placement semantics.
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 ("Adds bones (groups)") and immediately grounds it in the domain: bones are the animate-able containers that GeckoLib cubes belong to. That implicitly separates it from add_cubes and add_animation, though it never names those siblings directly.
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 concrete sequencing guidance for the workflow: start with one root bone, then body, head, legs, placing pivots at joints. It does not explicitly say when to choose this over add_cubes or add_animation, but the ordering and containment rules effectively define the correct usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.