Purchase ship insurance (Purchases insurance at your current risk-based rate. Coverage equals fitted ship value (hull + modules). Premium paid to the station insurer. Use get_insurance_quote first to see your rate.)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| session_id | Yes | Your session ID from login/register |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / ticksRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Number of ticks to insure for",
- "minimum": 1,
- "type": "integer"
-}Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "session_id",
- "ticks"
-]New value: +[
+ "session_id"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that coverage equals fitted ship value, the premium is paid to the station insurer, and the rate is risk-based. These details go beyond the readOnlyHint=false annotation, which only implies mutation.
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 compact, front-loaded with the action, and every sentence adds value—coverage formula, payment, and prerequisite. No redundant 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?
For a tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior, the cost formula, and the prerequisite. It doesn't describe the return value or what happens if insurance already exists, but these are minor gaps.
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?
Session_id is fully described in the schema, and the description doesn't add parameter-specific information. However, the mention of 'your current risk-based rate' provides context that the operation is tied to the ship associated with the session.
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 action ('Purchase ship insurance') and specifies what that means: acquiring coverage equal to fitted ship value including hull and modules. It also differentiates from sibling tools like get_insurance_quote by highlighting the prerequisite.
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 explicitly instructs to call get_insurance_quote first, providing clear context for when to use this tool. It does not mention exclusions like claiming insurance, but the prerequisite is a clear usage guideline.
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.