List all entries in your captain's log (Returns all log entries in reverse chronological order (newest first). Index 0 is the most recent entry.)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| index | No | Index of the log entry to retrieve (0 = newest, default 0). Use has_next/has_prev in response to paginate. | |
| 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 declare readOnly and idempotent, so the safety profile is known. The description adds ordering details (newest first, index 0) but fails to disclose that the tool actually returns one entry at a time with pagination metadata, contradicting the 'list all' claim. This is misleading.
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 short and front-loaded, but the parenthetical adds confusion rather than clarity due to the contradictory claim about listing all vs single entry. It's concise but not effectively structured.
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?
Missing explanation of pagination behavior, return metadata, and relationship to sibling tools like captains_log_get. The description fails to clarify what the agent should expect in terms of output, especially given the schema's paginated retrieval design.
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?
Input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description repeats the 'index 0 = newest' detail already present in the schema, adding no new semantic value. Baseline 3 applies due to high schema coverage.
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 claims to 'List all entries' but the input schema description says 'Get a captain's log entry by index (paginated, 1 entry at a time)', creating a fundamental contradiction about whether the tool returns all entries or a single paginated entry. This ambiguity undermines clarity.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the sibling 'captains_log_get'. The description implies it's for listing, but the schema suggests it's for retrieving a specific entry, leaving the agent without clear direction.
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.
