Measures a magazine's alignment in the weapon's magazine well across reload moments, reporting worst offset and tilt to diagnose seating issues.
A magazine's line into its well over a reload's moments: worst offset and tilt while in the well.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| axis | No | ||
| bone | Yes | ||
| seated_obj | Yes | ||
| moment_objs | Yes | ||
| well_depth_cm | No |
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, and it discloses nothing: no side effects, no permission/auth requirements, no return shape, no indication of whether it is read-only or mutating. Phrases like 'while in the well' add atmosphere but no behavioral facts.
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 is under-specification rather than conciseness: a single 15-word sentence of obfuscated metaphor fails to earn its place for a 5-parameter tool. The structure is not front-loaded with an actionable statement of purpose.
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 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should explain the computation, its inputs, and its result. It does none of this, leaving the agent unable to invoke the tool correctly or interpret its output.
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?
There are 5 parameters with 0% schema description coverage, including three required ones (seated_obj, moment_objs, bone) that are never explained. The description only gestures at 'moments' and 'well', leaving bone, axis, seated_obj, and well_depth_cm completely undocumented in both schema and description.
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 phrase 'worst offset and tilt while in the well' hints that this is a measurement/computation tool, but the framing ('a magazine's line into its well over a reload's moments') is so metaphorical that an agent cannot confidently map it to a concrete verb+resource. It offers no differentiation from the many rig_*/blueprint_align/motion_* siblings that plausibly do overlapping alignment work.
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 statement of when to use this tool, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as rig_part_line, rig_fist, or blueprint_align. The agent is left to guess the trigger conditions entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.