Create a new note document (Creates a tradeable text document. Notes can contain messages, secrets, contracts, coordinates, or any text. Max 100 char title, 100,000 char content. Requires docking and 1 cargo space.)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | Yes | Note title (max 100 characters) | |
| content | Yes | Note content text (max 100,000 characters) | |
| 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?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description describes a mutating creation operation. This is a direct contradiction. Idempotency is also questionable since each call creates a new note. Description cannot recover from this inconsistency.
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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. The parenthetical packs constraints and requirements efficiently, though it becomes slightly dense with multiple clauses. Still effective and not bloated.
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?
Covers purpose, constraints, and prerequisites, which is adequate for a simple creation tool. However, it does not mention return values or how to access the created note, and the annotation contradiction undermines overall completeness. Minimum viable with clear gaps.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% with all three parameters fully described. The description repeats max lengths already present in the schema and adds no additional param-specific semantics. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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?
Description starts with a specific verb+resource: 'Create a new note document' and further clarifies 'Creates a tradeable text document.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like read_note, delete_note, and get_notes by emphasizing creation of a new, tradeable note.
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?
Provides clear context with prerequisites 'Requires docking and 1 cargo space,' and implies a creation scenario. Does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient for an agent to know when to use this tool.
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.
