Retrieve full grip preset details for pistols or rifles, including hand placement on the mark and per-digit keep or curl-to-contact rules for accurate posing.
One preset in full: where the hand sits on the mark (palm facing, finger direction, offsets, push out) and each digit's rule (keep, or curl to contact toward the fist).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| hold | Yes | side:mark or side:mark:kind, e.g. l:support:palm | |
| family | Yes | pistol or rifle |
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 must carry the full behavioral burden. 'Show' and the detailed return fields imply a read-only inspection operation, but the description does not explicitly state read-only behavior, error handling for missing presets, or any other operational traits.
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?
The description is a single dense sentence that front-loads the main scope ('One preset in full') and uses the rest to enumerate what is returned. It is efficiently structured, though some domain terms ('mark', 'push out', 'fist') may be opaque without prior context.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description usefully describes the returned preset contents (hand position and digit rules). Combined with the fully documented input schema, an agent has enough to call it correctly, though explicit read-only/error semantics would make it 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both family and hold documented in the schema. The description does not add any parameter-level meaning such as accepted formats or enum expansion, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 description states it returns 'One preset in full' and enumerates the concrete contents: hand placement details and each digit's rule. The resource is clear and distinguishes it from list_presets by scope, though it does not explicitly name the sibling or use a canonical retrieval verb.
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 phrase 'One preset in full' implies this is for inspecting a single preset in detail when the summary from list_presets is insufficient. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives/exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.