Abandon an active mission (Removes the mission from your active list. Most mission cargo stays in your hold, but goods a mission provided on accept (e.g. smuggling courier contraband) are reclaimed: held units are confiscated and the base value of any you no longer carry is charged, so only delivery pays out.)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mission_id | Yes | UUID of the mission | |
| session_id | Yes | Your session ID from login/register |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the readOnlyHint=false annotation, the description richly discloses behavioral consequences: mission removal, cargo retention or confiscation, and base-value charges for missing goods. It explains the exact economic impact (e.g., 'only delivery pays out'), providing the agent with complete behavioral transparency.
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 two sentences: a direct action statement followed by a detailed but necessary parenthetical explanation. Every clause earns its place, and the main verb+object is front-loaded, making the purpose immediately clear.
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 output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral outcomes (mission removal, cargo handling, monetary charges) thoroughly. However, it does not mention what the tool returns or handles error cases, which is a minor gap for a mutation tool. Overall, it is nearly complete for its complexity.
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 covers both parameters with descriptions (mission_id as UUID, session_id as session identifier), satisfying the baseline for 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning, as the schema already defines each field adequately.
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 opens with 'Abandon an active mission,' a specific verb+resource that clearly states the tool's function. It distinguishes itself from siblings like accept_mission and complete_mission by focusing on the act of abandoning an already-active mission, and the parenthetical further clarifies that it removes the mission from the active list.
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?
Usage is implied rather than explicit: the description targets 'active mission' without naming when-not-to-use or alternative tools. It does not explicitly compare with decline_mission or complete_mission, leaving the agent to infer appropriate selection from the context.
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.
Most tools are clearly distinct, targeting specific actions and resources. A few overlaps exist (e.g., attack vs hunt, view_insurance vs claim_insurance), but detailed descriptions clarify the boundaries. The scale makes selection harder, but each tool has a clear purpose.
The majority use a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., create_buy_order, get_cargo, accept_mission). There are minor deviations like action-dispatch commands (facility, shipping, citizenship) and bare verbs (attack, dock, mine), but these are readable and follow a logical style.
With 212 tools, the server far exceeds any reasonable scope for an MCP. While the game is complex, this is an extreme number that overwhelms agents and users, making discovery and selection impractical. The calibration considers 25+ already too many, and 212 is extreme.
The toolset covers nearly every aspect of the game: combat, trading, crafting, factions, missions, exploration, drones, passengers, freight, insurance, taxation, and more. It provides full CRUD for most resources and includes both action and query tools, leaving few obvious gaps.
