Skip to main content
Glama
DynamicDeals

Gunsnation MCP

by DynamicDeals
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

67%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have perfectly distinct purposes: one retrieves a specific firearm by ID, while the other performs a broad search across the database. No ambiguity exists between lookup-by-identifier and search-by-criteria operations.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern. The singular/plural distinction (get_firearm vs search_firearms) logically reflects their respective functions of retrieving one versus finding many.

    Tool Count3/5

    With only 2 tools, the server meets the minimum viable surface for a read-only database but feels thin. It covers basic retrieval workflows but lacks browsing, listing, or filtering tools that would enrich the firearms domain.

    Completeness3/5

    Core read operations (search and get) are present, but notable gaps exist for discovery workflows such as browsing categories, listing manufacturers, or filtering by specific attributes like caliber or action type. Agents can work around these with broad searches, but the surface is minimal.

  • Average 3.7/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • Last stable release on
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • This repository is licensed under MIT License.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior3/5

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

    With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It adds valuable context about return values (specifications, description, images) compensating for the lack of output schema. However, it omits other behavioral traits like error handling (what happens if ID is invalid?), authentication requirements, or rate limiting.

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

    Conciseness5/5

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

    The two-sentence structure is perfectly economical: the first establishes the action and required parameter, while the second describes the return payload. There is no redundant or filler text.

    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 simple single-parameter retrieval tool without output schema, the description is adequate. It compensates for the missing output schema by describing return contents. It could be improved by mentioning error states or the relationship to search_firearms, but it covers the essential contract.

    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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions 'by its ID' which aligns with but does not extend beyond the schema's parameter description. No additional semantic details (e.g., ID format, where to obtain valid IDs) are provided.

    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 description clearly states the tool retrieves detailed firearm information using a specific ID, with a distinct resource and action. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling 'search_firearms' (e.g., stating this is for exact ID lookups versus search queries), keeping it from a perfect score.

    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?

    The phrase 'by its ID' implies usage when an identifier is already known, suggesting when to use it versus the search sibling. However, it lacks explicit guidance such as 'use this when you have a firearm ID; use search_firearms to find IDs by name or criteria.'

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

  • Behavior3/5

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

    With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It compensates adequately by disclosing the return structure ('basic details including name, brand, caliber...') since no output schema exists. However, it omits error handling behavior, rate limits, and authorization requirements.

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

    Conciseness5/5

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

    Two sentences total with zero waste. The first sentence establishes the operation and target, the second discloses the return value structure. Information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

    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?

    Given the 100% schema coverage and absence of output schema, the description adequately compensates by listing return fields. It meets expectations for a search tool but could be improved by noting error cases (e.g., no results found) or authentication requirements.

    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?

    The input schema has 100% description coverage, establishing a baseline of 3. The description mentions 'search criteria' generally but does not add semantic context beyond the schema, such as query syntax examples or pagination strategy details.

    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?

    The description clearly states the specific action ('Search') and resource ('Gunsnation firearms database'). It implicitly distinguishes from sibling 'get_firearm' by emphasizing 'search criteria' and returning a 'list' versus a single item retrieval.

    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?

    The description implies usage through the verb 'Search' versus the sibling's 'get', suggesting this is for finding multiple matches rather than specific ID lookup. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus 'get_firearm' or prerequisites like authentication requirements.

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

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

mcp-server-gunsnation MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

mcp-server-gunsnation MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/DynamicDeals/mcp-server-gunsnation'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server