rust.wiki

Shots and time to kill through armour, per hit area

calculate_damage

Read-onlyIdempotent

Shots and time to kill through armour, per hit area. The damage calculator page's maths (https://rust.wiki/calculators/damage). Damage per hit = weapon damage x ammo x attachment x hit-area multiplier x (1 - protection); protection of every piece covering the area is added (cap 100%), +4% per metal insert. Per zone (head, chest, legs, hands, feet): protection_pct, damage_per_hit, shots_to_kill (null = never) and time_to_kill_s (fire rate plus reloads when the magazine runs out). Close range only - no damage falloff; shotguns assume every pellet hits. Limb multipliers are low confidence.

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": {
      "weapon": "<weapon>"
    },
    "name": "calculate_damage"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`hp`	No	Target health.
`ammo`	No	Ammo name for that weapon (default: its standard ammo).
`suit`	No	Full-body suit instead: hazmatsuit or bone.armor.suit.
`armour`	No	Comma-separated armour and clothing the target wears (shortnames or names). Per slot: one clothing piece under one armour piece; dual pieces take both.
`weapon`	Yes	Weapon shortname or name (guns and bows).
`inserts`	No	Metal armour inserts per slot, `slot:n` (head, chest, legs, hands, feet; 0-3).
`attachment`	No	Muzzle attachment: none, silencer, oilfilter, sodacan, muzzlebrake.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 14, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish this as a safe, idempotent, read-only local computation, and the description goes well beyond them by disclosing modelling assumptions (no falloff, all pellets hit, low-confidence limb multipliers) and the armour stacking rule with a 100% cap plus +4% per insert. It also documents output key semantics, notably that shots_to_kill null means never and that time_to_kill_s includes reloads, which is valuable since no output schema exists.

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?

The definition is front-loaded with the purpose and then the formula, and every clause carries information (formula, stacking rules, output keys, caveats). It is dense but not padded; the wiki URL is the only element of questionable necessity.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a 7-parameter tool with no output schema, the description supplies the return keys, their units and their null semantics, plus the assumptions that bound the results. Remaining gaps are minor, such as whether hp influences time_to_kill_s or how unsupported weapon types are handled.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter is already documented and the baseline is 3. The formula adds some meaning about how weapon, ammo, attachment, armour and inserts combine numerically, but it does not clarify format or edge cases for parameters the schema leaves ambiguous, such as slot naming consistency between armour and inserts.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The first sentence names a specific computation (shots and time to kill through armour) and its granularity (per hit area), and the formula makes clear it is a damage-model calculator rather than a raw data lookup. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the data-oriented sibling get_damage_data, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage context is implied by the modelling caveats ('Close range only - no damage falloff; shotguns assume every pellet hits'), which tell the agent when the results are valid. However, there is no explicit statement of when to pick this tool over the related data/calculator siblings, and no stated prerequisites.

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

All rust.wiki 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?