Filters and retrieves weapon bug cases by status or weapon, returning each case's metric, required action, and pass rule for fix validation.
The cases (each a known bug as a metric, a weapon, an action and a pass rule).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | No | ||
| weapon | No |
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 the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about whether this is a read or write, what permissions are needed, or what happens on invocation. It only restates the domain concept of a 'case'.
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 and has no filler, but that is because it is under-specified rather than concise. A fragment with no leading verb leaves nothing usable front-loaded.
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 tool with two undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema in a dense sibling namespace, the description supplies almost nothing an agent needs to call it correctly. It is effectively a glossary entry, not a tool description.
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 0% and the description never addresses the two parameters (status, weapon), not even to say whether they act as filters. 'Weapon' appears only in the definitional parenthetical, not as parameter guidance, so the agent cannot infer how to use either argument.
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 is a noun-phrase fragment ('The cases...') that defines what a case is but never states a verb or what the tool actually does with them (list? fetch? filter?). It does not distinguish gate_cases from siblings like gate_add_case, gate_metrics, or gate_weapons.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of any alternative such as gate_add_case for creating cases or gate_metrics/gate_weapons for the related resources. The agent is given no routing information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.