List Weapons
list_weaponsVALORANT reference data (valorant-api.com) — list weapons with category, cost, fire-rate, and magazine size. Static game data, keyless.
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
list_weaponsVALORANT reference data (valorant-api.com) — list weapons with category, cost, fire-rate, and magazine size. Static game data, keyless.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {}
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds valuable context: it is 'keyless' (no authentication needed) and 'static game data', which goes beyond the annotations.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes only essential information.
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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what data is returned and its source, making it complete for an agent to invoke.
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?
There are no parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter info, so baseline 4 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the tool lists weapons from VALORANT reference data, specifying the attributes included (category, cost, fire-rate, magazine size). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_maps and list_agents.
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?
It implicitly indicates usage for retrieving static game data without authentication, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.