Lists ready-made coating and wear variant sets for gun models, helping you choose a preconfigured finish and apply it without defining materials from scratch.
The ready variant sets (e.g. ar15: issued, new_black, fde_two_tone, odg_ceramic, tungsten_stainless, abused_parkerized).
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about whether this is a read-only enumeration, how results are ordered, whether names or IDs are returned, or how the list relates to the per-template reads. Only the content category (ready variant sets) is disclosed.
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?
Extremely short with no wasted words, but it is a sentence fragment rather than a front-loaded statement of action, so the structure is under-specified rather than efficient.
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 trivial zero-param listing tool with no output schema, the description should at least state that it returns the available template names and perhaps how they map to render_variants arguments. The concrete example list partially covers this, leaving a modest gap.
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 zero parameters, so per the baseline no parameter documentation is required. The description's example values are illustrative naming conventions, not parameter behavior, but nothing is missing on this dimension.
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 name says list_templates, but the description is a noun fragment ('The ready variant sets') that never states the tool enumerates them. The parenthetical examples of ar15 variant set names do convey what a 'template' is, which is genuinely useful, but the verb/resource pairing comes from the name alone.
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?
No guidance on when to call this versus siblings like list_finishes, list_wear_levels, or render_variants, nor any prerequisite or ordering hint. The agent must infer that it is the discovery step before rendering.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.