Retrieve all available surface finishes with process, color, metallic, roughness, and wear targets to select and validate coating options for game gun models.
Every finish: name, process, colour (sRGB hex), metallic, roughness, what it wears to, measured or estimated.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the shape of what comes back (name, process, sRGB hex, metallic, roughness, wear target, measured vs estimated). It does not say whether the catalog is static or mutable, how large it is, or whether measured/estimated is a flag per record — gaps that matter for a zero-annotation tool.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence that earns its place by listing the returned attributes. Minor deduction for jargon like 'what it wears to', which is opaque without domain context, and for the missing verb.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description must explain the return shape, and it does by naming each field including the sRGB hex format and the measured/estimated distinction. It omits ordering, total count and whether results are paginated, which keeps it short of complete.
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?
The tool takes no parameters, so there is nothing to document; the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly adds no param noise.
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 phrase 'Every finish' plus the enumerated field list makes clear this returns the full finish catalog, and the singular sibling read_finish is implicitly distinguished by 'every'. It stops short of an explicit verb ('list'/'return'), so the purpose is clear but slightly inferred.
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 versus read_finish, check_finish or check_library, and no mention of prerequisites or when a targeted lookup is preferable. The only hint is the word 'Every', which merely implies a full-catalog use case.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.