Accept a mission from the mission board (You must be docked at the base offering the mission. Maximum 5 active missions at once. Use get_missions to see available missions and their IDs.)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mission_id | No | Mission ID or template ID to accept (one of mission_id/template_id required) | |
| session_id | Yes | Your session ID from login/register | |
| template_id | No | Mission template ID to accept (takes priority over mission_id) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / mission_id / descriptionPrevious value: -"UUID of the mission"New value: +"Mission ID or template ID to accept (one of mission_id/template_id required)"Input schema / properties / template_idAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Mission template ID to accept (takes priority over mission_id)",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "session_id",
- "mission_id"
-]New value: +[
+ "session_id"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With readOnlyHint=false, the agent already knows this is a mutating operation. The description adds important behavioral context beyond that: it requires being docked and enforces a five-active-mission limit. It also implies that accepting a mission consumes a slot. This is useful supplemental disclosure of preconditions and constraints.
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 a single concise sentence with a parenthetical containing only essential constraints. It is front-loaded with the core action and adds the most critical usage details without any fluff. Every word earns its place.
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?
For a 3-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description provides the key prerequisites (docking, mission cap) and points to the companion tool for ID discovery. It does not explain the return value or failure behavior, but given the simplicity of the action and schema coverage of parameters, the description is adequately complete for an AI agent to invoke 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 100%, so each parameter has a description. The tool description adds context by referencing get_missions for mission IDs and mentioning that template_id takes priority (from schema). However, it doesn't clarify when to use mission_id vs template_id beyond what the schema already states. Since the schema carries the burden, a baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the tool's action: 'Accept a mission from the mission board.' It uses a specific verb (accept) and resource (mission board), and distinguishes it from related tools like abandon_mission or decline_mission by focusing on the acceptance action. It also mentions the context of active missions, making the purpose unambiguous.
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?
The description provides explicit usage constraints: 'You must be docked at the base offering the mission' and 'Maximum 5 active missions at once.' It also directs the user to get_missions for finding mission IDs. While it doesn't enumerate alternative tools to avoid, it clearly indicates when this tool is appropriate (docked, under the mission cap), which is strong usage guidance.
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.