Defines the weapons and actions for a Weapon Lab probe job, letting AI clients specify what the probe targets before gathering metrics or screenshots.
The job's weapons the probe would get.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| actions | No | ||
| weapons | No |
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 disclosure burden, and it discloses nothing: not whether this is a read-only computation or a mutation, not whether it requires a provisioned job, not what happens on missing actions/weapons. The noun-phrase wording actively obscures the operation.
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, but brevity here comes from under-specification rather than economy; the single clause is a dangling fragment with no verb or subject clarity. There is no front-loaded action statement for the agent to anchor on.
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?
No output schema, no annotations, and two undocumented optional parameters leave the agent with nothing actionable. Despite the tool being in a dense sibling cluster (probe_*, gate_*), the description provides no grounding to distinguish it or call 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?
Both parameters (actions, weapons) have 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate and instead says nothing about their format, string vocabulary, or role. 'weapons' appears in the description but is never explained as an input versus an output field.
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 fragment 'The job's weapons the probe would get' gestures at a planning/inspection operation returning weapons, but it has no verb and no stated resource relationship to siblings like probe_run or probe_status. An agent cannot tell from this whether it plans, previews, or mutates a probe job.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no reference to the related siblings probe_status / probe_run that an agent would naturally confuse this with. Nothing indicates when a plan should be requested versus executing a probe.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.