Retrieves every gun action type Weapon Lab recognizes, along with its guns, parts, and clips, to help map firearm components and magazines.
The kinds of gun action Gun Kit knows (AR gas, AK handle, bolt, lever, pump, pistol slide, open bolt, revolver, belt fed, launchers, bow, crossbow, flamethrower, fictional energy guns): each one's guns, parts and clips.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 burden. It hints at payload shape ('each one's guns, parts and clips') but never states that this is a read-only static reference, whether results are cached or large, or how it relates to the parameterized gunkit_action lookup. That is thin disclosure for an unannotated tool.
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 front-loaded sentence states the purpose, then spends the remainder on the enumeration it returns. The parenthetical list is long but earns its place by telling the agent which action categories exist, which is the point of the tool.
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 zero parameters, no annotations and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it says what is returned and roughly with what granularity. It still omits any structural detail of the response beyond 'guns, parts and clips', and gives no relationship to gunkit_action or the other gunkit_* tools.
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 input schema declares zero properties, so there are no parameters to document; the baseline for a 0-parameter tool is 4. The parenthetical action names do double duty as informal vocabulary, but no formal parameter semantics exist to clarify.
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 (the catalogue of gun action kinds Gun Kit knows) and enumerates the categories it covers, so an agent knows this is a static enumeration lookup rather than an operation. It does not distinguish itself from the singular sibling gunkit_action, leaving the list-vs-single relationship to inference.
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 statement, no mention of the sibling gunkit_action for looking up one action, and no indication of whether this is a discovery step before gunkit_build or gunkit_rig. Usage is only implied by the noun phrase.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.