Fetches bones, slots, constraints, and animation data for a given project, enabling MCP clients to inspect Spine rig structure before processing or export.
Bones (with world head positions), slots (bone, attachment type, blend), constraints and animations of a project.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project | Yes |
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 reveals the shape of the returned data, but never states that this is a read-only, non-mutating query, what happens if the project name is unknown, or whether any permissions/setup are required.
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?
One compact sentence with no filler, front-loading the most important content (the data returned). It is a fragment rather than a full explanatory sentence, but nothing is wasted.
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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description does the most important job of enumerating the return payload, which partly substitutes for a missing output schema. It is still incomplete on parameter format and the read-only guarantee.
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% and the single 'project' parameter is undocumented in the schema. The description says only 'of a project', giving no hint whether the value is a name, path, UUID, or handle, so it fails to compensate for the coverage 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 fragment enumerates what the tool surfaces (bones with world head positions, slots, constraints, animations of a project), so an agent can infer this is a project-inspection/read tool, but there is no verb and no mention of what the tool does with that data. It also fails to distinguish itself from inspection siblings such as doctor, inspect_psd, preview, or validate.
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 statement of when to call this tool, what prerequisites exist (project must already be loaded/imported), or which siblings to use instead for similar inspection needs. The agent must infer usage entirely from the noun list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.