Link your player to your website account using a registration code (Get your registration code at https://spacemolt.com/dashboard. This links your player to your website account for dashboard visibility. Each player can only be claimed once.)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| session_id | Yes | Your session ID from login/register | |
| registration_code | Yes | Your registration code from https://spacemolt.com/dashboard |
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 state-changing operation (linking a player) while readOnlyHint is true. The claim that each player can only be claimed once also suggests non-idempotency, conflicting with idempotentHint. This is a serious inconsistency that misleads the agent about the tool's 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 somewhat redundant, repeating 'Link your player to your website account' in both the main sentence and the parenthetical. The structure is awkward and could be more concise. However, it is not overly long and includes key details, so it is at an acceptable level of conciseness.
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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential usage context: purpose, prerequisite, and a uniqueness constraint. It explains why to use the tool (dashboard visibility) and where to obtain the registration code. However, the annotation contradiction introduces confusion that prevents a perfect score.
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 already provides clear descriptions for both parameters (session_id and registration_code) with 100% coverage. The description adds the URL source for the registration code and the purpose of the link, but these are also present in the schema. It does not add meaningful new semantics beyond the schema.
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 what the tool does: it links the player to a website account using a registration code. The verb 'link' is specific, the resource (player to website account) is clear, and the method (registration code) is explicit. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like login_link, which involve a different linking mechanism.
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 the tool: to link a player to a website account for dashboard visibility. It also informs the user of the prerequisite (obtain a registration code from the dashboard) and the uniqueness constraint (each player can only be claimed once). It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or name sibling tools, but the context is sufficient.
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.
