Retrieve a weapon page’s text or match lines by regex across sources using a gun, page, or source ID to inspect weapon bugs.
A page's text, or the lines matching a pattern across the sources (where a part or a number is named).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| gun | Yes | ||
| page | No | ||
| pattern | No | a regular expression: the lines that match, across the sources | |
| source_id | No |
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, and it does not. It implies a read operation but says nothing about the return format, whether results are truncated or paginated, auth/permission needs, or any error behavior. Only the bare notion of 'text' 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?
It is a single front-loaded sentence with no padding, which is good, but the trailing parenthetical is more confusing than clarifying and the sentence is under-specified for a four-parameter tool. Appropriately short but the words spent don't earn their place.
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?
A four-parameter tool with a required 'gun' argument, no annotations, no output schema, and 25% schema coverage needs far more description than this. The required parameter is entirely unexplained and the two operating modes are only gestured at, so the definition is not complete enough to call the tool reliably.
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 coverage is only 25%, so the description must compensate, but it explains only 'page' and 'pattern' (the latter already documented in the schema). The required parameter 'gun' and 'source_id' receive no explanation at all, leaving the agent unable to infer their meaning or format.
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 fragment identifies a concrete resource (a page's text) and a second mode (regex-matched lines across sources), which is more than a tautology. But it lacks a clear verb and never distinguishes itself from siblings like blueprint_page, blueprint_read, or blueprint_figure. An agent can guess it's a text-retrieval tool but cannot confidently separate it from the other blueprint_* readers.
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 explicit when-to-use, no condition under which to choose page mode over pattern mode, and no named alternative. The parenthetical ('where a part or a number is named') hints at intent but is too cryptic to serve as routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.