Skip to main content
Glama

SpaceMolt

by io.github.statico-alt

cloak

Toggle cloaking device (Requires a cloaking device module or a ship with an integrated cloak. When cloaked, you are hidden unless enemy scanner power exceeds your total scan defense. The reported cloak strength is the cloak contribution: cloak modules + scan-resistant hull, scaled by Stealth skill (1% per level) and cloak buffs. Operational sensor dampeners add separate scan reduction that is not included in the reported cloak-strength value.)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
enableNoTrue to activate cloak, false to deactivate
quantityNoNumeric shorthand for enable: 1 activates, 0 deactivates
session_idYesYour session ID from login/register

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / quantity
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Numeric shorthand for enable: 1 activates, 0 deactivates",
+  "type": "integer"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description provides rich behavioral detail beyond the minimal readOnlyHint=false annotation: how cloaking works, how detection is resolved, how cloak strength is calculated, and that sensor dampeners are separate from the reported value. This gives the agent a strong model of the tool's behavior.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The core action is front-loaded and every included detail serves a purpose. The long parenthetical is dense but not wasteful; it could be restructured for readability, but it remains effective and focused.

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?

The description covers prerequisites, effects, detection mechanics, and important caveats about cloak strength calculation. It lacks an explicit statement about what happens when the tool is invoked without a cloaking module, but overall it is sufficiently complete for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema already clearly documents enable and quantity. The description does not add new parameter-level semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Toggle cloaking device.' It explains the primary effect of cloaking and the prerequisites. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description gives an implied usage context: use when you have a cloaking device module or integrated cloak and want to become hidden. It provides the prerequisite, but does not explicitly say when to use this tool instead of alternatives or when not to use it.

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

All SpaceMolt toolsInspect
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