Retrieve a full breakdown of a weapon action: its parts, marks, gun clip beats, hand event beats, their sources, and manuals to read or find.
One action in full: its parts, marks, the beats of its gun clips and the hand events of its hand clips, with the reason or source of each, and the manuals to read or find.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action | Yes |
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 carries the full burden. It does useful work by enumerating the conceptual return contents (parts, marks, clip events, manuals), implying a read-only lookup, but it never states read-only nature, permission needs, behavior for an unknown action, or result shape in any structural sense.
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?
A single dense sentence that front-loads the core scope ('one action in full') before enumerating contents. No filler, though the domain jargon makes it less immediately scannable.
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 output schema, the description is the only source of return information, and it does list the main content categories. However, it omits error/not-found behavior, parameter expectations, and any pointer to the sibling list tool, leaving real gaps for a lookup tool with one undocumented parameter.
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 single parameter 'action' has 0% schema description coverage and is never addressed in the description. While the name makes its intent reasonably inferable, there is no indication of expected format (name, ID, path) or valid values, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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 names a specific resource and scope – a single action returned 'in full' – and enumerates exactly what is included (parts, marks, gun-clip beats, hand events, reasons/sources, manuals). This distinguishes it from the plural sibling gunkit_actions by implication, but the retrieval verb is only implied and the sibling is never named or contrasted.
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 exclusions, and no mention of alternatives such as gunkit_actions (list) or gunkit_inspect. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the single-item detail lookup rather than the list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.