SpaceMolt

claim_prize

Assign prize crew and begin recovery of an intact captured ship (You and the prize must be at the same POI and out of combat. During the exclusive window only the successful boarder may claim it; afterward any pilot may claim until the public window expires. The destination must be a station you can access. Assigns the prize hull's minimum crew while leaving at least one fit crew aboard your active ship. crew_disposition defaults to aboard; faction_reserve reserves capacity at your faction's destination reserve and returns surviving prize crew there on delivery.)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`prize_id`	Yes	Intact prize record ID at your current POI
`session_id`	Yes	Your session ID from login/register
`crew_disposition`	No	Where surviving assigned crew go on delivery. Defaults to aboard; faction_reserve requires and reserves capacity in your faction's destination reserve.
`destination_base_id`	Yes	Accessible station base ID where the autonomous prize should recover

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

AddedAug 30, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations mark this as a mutating operation (readOnlyHint=false), and the description adds concrete behavioral details: minimum crew assignment, leaving at least one crew on the active ship, and the crew_disposition effects. It does not cover failure modes or costs, but it goes well beyond the minimal annotation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The opening phrase is clear, but the description is a dense parenthetical block. The crew_disposition explanation is nearly redundant with the schema description, so not every part of the text earns its place. It could be trimmed or split into structured sentences.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutating tool with no output schema, the description covers preconditions, timing windows, destination constraints, and crew mechanics—enough for an agent to invoke it correctly. It leaves return values and error behavior unspecified, but these are not required given the schema richness.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and already explains crew_disposition defaults, faction_reserve behavior, and accessible destination. The description mostly restates these facts, adding only a small amount of contextual emphasis on location and destination access.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Assign prize crew and begin recovery of an intact captured ship.' This unambiguously identifies the tool's action and target, and the prize-specific terminology distinguishes it from generic siblings like 'claim' and related tools like 'service_prize.'

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description states clear preconditions: same POI, out of combat, exclusive versus public window, and an accessible destination station. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or say when not to use it, but the conditions strongly imply the appropriate usage context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All SpaceMolt tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

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.

Naming Consistency4/5

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.

Tool Count1/5

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.

Completeness5/5

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.

Resources

Need Help?