Stages a gun's FBX, clips, and data files for a game, then registers the build with the Gate's gunkit provider.
The gun's files staged for a game: its FBX with its clips, the hand clips, an import plan, a draft data file and a trial copy pointing at staging. Registers the build for the Gate's gunkit provider.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| base | No | the game's current definition of the gun (a data file), for its numbers | |
| facts | Yes | ||
| game_id | 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 files are staged and that a build is registered (a side effect), but says nothing about permissions, idempotency, whether staging overwrites existing files, failure modes, or return behavior. This is a significant gap for a tool with an implicit write/registration side effect.
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?
Two sentences that are dense and front-load the artifact list, with no obvious filler. However, the run-on enumeration of artifacts is hard to parse and pushes the actionable 'registers the build' clause to the end, weakening front-loading.
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 annotations, no output schema, and 33% parameter coverage, the description is the only source of behavioral and argument context – and it is inadequate. It never explains the required 'facts' and 'game_id' inputs, and omits any guidance on workflow placement, so an agent cannot confidently invoke it correctly.
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 only 33% – only 'base' is documented, while 'facts' and 'game_id' (both required) have no schema description. The prose description adds no meaning for any parameter, leaving two of three arguments, including a required one, unexplained in both structured and unstructured data.
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 enumerates the artifacts staged (FBX with clips, hand clips, import plan, draft data file, trial copy) and mentions registering the build, so the resource is fairly specific. However, the core action verb 'export' appears only in the tool name; the description reads as a noun phrase about outputs rather than stating 'exports the gun's files for a game'. It also does not distinguish the tool from siblings like gunkit_build, gunkit_draft, or gunkit_proxy.
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 guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives among the many gunkit_* siblings. The mention of 'Registers the build for the Gate's gunkit provider' hints at a workflow role but leaves the agent to infer when this should be called versus gunkit_build or gunkit_draft.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.