Run weapon measurements against probe, rig, or project providers and store the results. Use it to gather metrics and screenshots for comparing candidate fixes to a baseline before approval.
Measures the weapons with the providers (probe, rig, or the project's own) and stores the run.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| actions | No | ||
| staging | No | ||
| weapons | No | ||
| providers | Yes |
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. It discloses that a run is stored (a mutation/side effect), which is useful, but omits permissions, idempotency, whether it overwrites or appends, concurrency behavior, and what 'measuring' entails. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, which is structurally efficient. However, its brevity reflects under-specification rather than helpful conciseness, since essential context about usage, parameters, and behavior is missing.
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?
Given a 4-parameter tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is far too thin. It leaves the agent without the usage guidance, parameter semantics, or behavioral details needed to invoke the tool correctly. It is not entirely empty, but it has major gaps.
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 0% across 4 parameters. The description only name-drops 'weapons' and 'providers' without explaining their meaning, expected values, or relationship. The 'actions' and 'staging' parameters are completely undocumented in both the schema and the description, leaving half the inputs opaque.
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 contains a verb ('Measures') and a resource ('weapons with the providers'), plus a side effect ('stores the run'). However, the domain terms 'weapons' and 'providers' are opaque, and it does not differentiate gate_run from sibling tools like gate_evals, gate_metrics, or probe_run. An agent would struggle to know what a 'gate run' actually does.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like gate_evals, gate_metrics, gate_verdict, or probe_run. No prerequisites, no exclusions, and no context about when a gate run is appropriate. The description provides no when-to-use information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.