GunSpec

Compare firearms by name

gunspec_compare_by_name

Read-onlyIdempotent

Workflow. Compares two to five firearms, named as the user wrote them ("G19", "P320 Compact"), in a single call. Each name is resolved to a record, and only the figures that differ are returned. The lightest, shortest and highest-capacity firearms are identified; a leader shared with others names them under tiedWith, and a figure every firearm shares has no leader. Names that do not match a single record are listed under unresolved with their candidates and are never guessed. Replaces one resolve call per name plus one compare call.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "names": "<names>"
    },
    "name": "gunspec_compare_by_name"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`names`	Yes	Two to five firearm names or slug ids. Names beyond the fifth are ignored.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedSep 18, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds substantial behavior beyond them: only differing figures are returned, lightest/shortest/highest-capacity winners are identified, ties surface under `tiedWith`, all-shared figures have no leader, extra names past the fifth are ignored, and unresolved names return candidates rather than being guessed. This is exactly the output-shape and edge-case context annotations cannot carry.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded workflow framing, no filler words, and each sentence carries distinct information (resolution, diffing, leaders, ties, unresolved). It is slightly dense as one unbroken block, but nothing is redundant.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description fully compensates by describing the return contract: only differing figures, leader designation, `tiedWith`, no-leader case, and `unresolved` with candidates. An agent knows what it will get back and how edge cases behave.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the single `names` array is already documented, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds real value by showing accepted input style ('G19', 'P320 Compact') and the human-as-written framing, which clarifies the name-resolution contract beyond the schema's terse 'names or slug ids'.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Compares two to five firearms, named as the user wrote them') and the resolution step in a single call. 'Replaces one resolve call per name plus one compare call' implicitly positions it against gunspec_resolve_firearm and gunspec_compare_firearms, so an agent can tell which tool to pick.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives a clear trigger condition (comparing 2-5 firearms by human-written name) and a batch-workflow rationale that steers agents away from chaining resolve+compare. It does not explicitly state when NOT to use it, e.g. for slug-only comparisons or single-firearm lookups, so exclusions remain implied.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All GunSpec tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?