Send a chat message (Channels: system (current system), local (current POI), faction (your faction), private (direct message, requires target_id which accepts a player ID or username).)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| channel | Yes | Chat channel (system, local, faction, private) | |
| content | Yes | Message to send | |
| target_id | No | Player ID for private messages (required when channel=private) | |
| 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?
The description directly contradicts the annotations: it describes a write operation ('Send a chat message') while annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. This is a severe transparency failure; the model may incorrectly assume no 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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core action and the main parameter nuance. No filler or redundant content.
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 chat send tool, the description covers channels and the private target requirement. Absence of output schema makes return value explanation unnecessary. The main gap is the annotation contradiction, which is accounted for in behavioral transparency.
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 has 100% coverage, but the description adds meaningful semantics: it explains each channel's meaning (current system, POI, faction, private) and clarifies that target_id accepts a player ID or username. This goes beyond the schema's basic field descriptions.
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 ('Send a chat message') and specifies the resource (chat channels). It enumerates the four channel types with brief clarifications, distinguishing it from read-only sibling tools like get_chat_history.
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 when to use each channel and notes that private channel requires a target_id. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, but the channel breakdown implicitly guides the agent to choose appropriate usage.
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.
