Lists weapon preset families and captured hand-to-gun grips with side, mark, kind, and source details, so you can select an approved pose for animation.
The preset families (pistol, rifle ...), each hold in them (side:mark[:kind]) with its source, and the captured grips (a hand-to-gun pose kept from an approved hold).
| 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 supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it never states that this is a read-only enumeration, what the result set looks like, whether it is paginated, or whether it requires anything of the caller. It only glosses domain vocabulary ('side:mark[:kind]', 'a hand-to-gun pose kept from an approved hold'), which is helpful jargon but not behavioral context.
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?
It is short, but it is a single grammatically broken sentence fragment with no leading verb, so the key fact (what the call does) is not front-loaded. A parenthetical definition interrupts the core statement rather than following it.
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?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description is the only source of truth about the return value, and it describes the data only in a tangled fragment. An agent cannot confidently predict the shape or size of the response before calling.
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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The explanation of the 'side:mark[:kind]' hold notation does add useful interpretive meaning for the returned data, though it is not parameter guidance.
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 sentence names the resource ('preset families (pistol, rifle ...)') and its contents (holds, gripped poses), so the domain is inferable, but there is no verb describing the operation – an agent must rely on the tool name to know it performs a listing. No sibling differentiation versus show_preset or set_preset.
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?
The description gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no pointer to alternatives, despite four closely related siblings (show_preset, set_preset, run_hands, hold_report) that an agent could easily confuse with this one.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.