jump_hyperlaneJump along a hyperlane (lane_id from get_hyperlanes) -- a named long-distance link that costs fuel and leaves warp fatigue. A docked ship undocks automatically (reply shows auto_undocked: true). For ordinary neighbour sectors use warp.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bearer | No | Your SPACE-CORE Bearer token. Only needed if your client cannot send the Authorization header. | |
| lane_id | Yes | Hyperlane ID from get_hyperlanes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / bearer / descriptionAdded value: +"Your SPACE-CORE Bearer token. Only needed if your client cannot send the Authorization header."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations, the description discloses important consequences: hyperlane jumps cost fuel and leave warp fatigue, and a docked ship undocks automatically with auto_undocked: true in the reply. This is exactly the kind of behavioral context an agent needs for a non-read-only, non-idempotent action.
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?
The description is tightly front-loaded: it states the action first, then the lane_id source, then side effects, then the alternative. Every sentence carries useful selection or invocation information.
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 the simple two-parameter schema and the absence of an output schema, the description is complete enough to call the tool correctly. It covers the required lane_id source, fuel and fatigue costs, auto-undocking, and the warp alternative.
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 100%, so the schema already documents lane_id and bearer. The description only repeats that lane_id comes from get_hyperlanes and does not add format or edge-case semantics beyond the schema.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Jump along a hyperlane'. It distinguishes this from sibling tools by naming get_hyperlanes as the source of lane_id and by explicitly contrasting it with warp for ordinary neighbour sectors.
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?
It gives explicit when-to-use guidance: hyperlanes are for named long-distance links, while 'For ordinary neighbour sectors use warp.' It also tells the agent where lane_id comes from via get_hyperlanes.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.