Render Spine animations into GIFs, contact sheets, and a setup-pose PNG via the spine-core runtime so you can review rig, physics, and clipping results before exporting.
Render animations through the official spine-core runtime (IK, physics, clipping all solved) to GIFs + contact sheets, plus a setup-pose PNG.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fps | No | ||
| size | No | ||
| wire | No | ||
| out_dir | No | ||
| project | Yes | ||
| animations | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the rendering engine and that IK, physics, and clipping are solved, and names the output artifacts. But it omits whether files are overwritten, where output lands by default, runtime cost, or any auth/version 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?
A single front-loaded sentence that packs the engine, solved systems, and all three output artifact types with no filler. The parenthetical about IK/physics/clipping is dense but informative.
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 six-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers outputs reasonably well but leaves all input semantics and operational caveats unexplained. An agent could not confidently set fps, size, or out_dir from this.
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 coverage is 0% for six parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It implies animation rendering (the 'animations' param) and arguably wireframe mode ('wire'), but fps, size, out_dir, and project are never explained or tied to their effects.
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 (render) and resource (animations) and enumerates the outputs: GIFs, contact sheets, and a setup-pose PNG, plus the rendering engine (spine-core runtime). However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling render/export tools like export_runtime, validate, or qa_budget.
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?
The description gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. An agent must infer from the name 'preview' that this is a visual-verification step rather than a final export, with no text confirming that.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.