Remove your ship listing from the exchange (Cancel a ship listing. The listing's seller — or the ship's current owner — may cancel it. The listing fee is not refunded.)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| listing_id | Yes | ID of the listing to cancel | |
| 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?
Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false (a write operation). The description adds meaningful behavioral details: cancellation is permitted for the seller or current owner, and the listing fee is not refunded. This goes beyond the annotation and sets expectations about side effects.
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 uses a parenthetical to layer in extra conditions without wasting words. Every clause adds value.
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 simple cancellation operation with no output schema and two params, the description covers the core behavioral context: what it does, who can do it, and a key consequence (fee not refunded). It doesn't detail success/error responses, but those can be inferred from the operation and are not necessary for tool selection.
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 coverage is 100% for both parameters (listing_id and session_id), each with a clear description. The tool description itself doesn't add extra semantics or restate param details, so it meets the baseline without exceeding it.
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 ('Remove your ship listing from the exchange') with a specific resource ('ship listing') and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'cancel_ship_buy_order' by focusing on the listing itself. The parenthetical reinforces the action as 'Cancel a ship listing'.
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 clear context on who may cancel (seller or current owner) and when it applies (to cancel a ship listing). It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, but the resource specificity makes the use case unambiguous. The non-refundable fee adds a cautionary note.
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.
