Skip to main content
Glama

SpaceMolt

by io.github.statico-alt

complete_mission

Complete a mission and claim rewards (Mission objectives must be fulfilled. Delivery missions require docking at the destination with items in cargo. Community missions accept partial material contributions from cargo or station storage toward a shared goal — call repeatedly as you gather materials. Rewards include credits, items, and skill XP. Empire mission credit rewards are paid from the issuing empire's treasury and are capped at its balance: if it cannot cover the advertised reward, the response carries credits_promised and credits_shortfall alongside the credits_earned you were actually paid.)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
mission_idYesUUID of the mission
session_idYesYour session ID from login/register

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint as false and destructiveHint as true, so the destructive nature is already visible. The description adds context about the mission being ended and unclaimable, which goes slightly beyond the annotation, but doesn't reveal mechanisms such as how the confirmation is elicited, whether any items set sail with the mission remain, or what the response format looks like.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is one concise, well-front-loaded sentence. It states the primary action immediately and adds the finality consequence without unnecessary elaboration.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the tool complexity is moderate, with a full parameter set and clear output behavior, the description is minimally sufficient. It lacks an output schema and does not explain what the response contains (whether it lists forfeited rewards or confirms cancellation), but still communicates the essential outcome.

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%, so the schema already documents the parameters. The description adds no additional meaning about session_id required or how mission_id is obtained; it only implies that the parameters identify the mission and session. Baseline 3 applies.

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 is explicit: the tool 'cancels' a mission, with the consent semantics implied by labeling it a confirmation step. It distinguishes the result from mere mission abandonment by noting the mission is actually ended and rewards/penalties are applied.

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 clearly indicates this is a game-action tool rather than a record-keeping or inquiry tool. Although it doesn't explicitly call out 'use confirm_mission instead for the confirmation prompt' as an alternative, the action-oriented language and the focus on the termination side make the core intent unmistakable.

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