Skip to main content
Glama

SpaceMolt

by io.github.statico-alt

decline_mission

Read-onlyIdempotent

Decline a mission and hear the NPC's response (Returns the mission giver's decline dialog. The mission remains available — you can still accept it later. Must be docked at a base where the mission is available.)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
mission_idNoMission ID to decline (alias for template_id)
session_idYesYour session ID from login/register
template_idNoMission template ID to decline (one of template_id/mission_id required)

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / mission_id
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Mission ID to decline (alias for template_id)",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / template_id / description
      Previous value: -"Mission template ID to decline"New value: +"Mission template ID to decline (one of template_id/mission_id required)"
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "session_id",
-  "template_id"
-]New value: +[
+  "session_id"
+]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds key behavioral context: it returns the NPC's decline dialog, has no destructive effect, and requires docking. This goes beyond the safety annotations by clarifying the exact outcome and prerequisite, earning a strong score.

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 two sentences, front-loads the core action, and every clause provides useful information (return dialog, availability persistence, docking requirement). No wasted words.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a simple state-changing-in-appearance but actually read-only tool, the description covers the return value (decline dialog), side effect (mission remains available), and prerequisite (docked at base). With strong annotations and full schema coverage, this is fully complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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?

The schema covers 100% of parameters with clear descriptions, so the description need not explain them. The description adds no extra parameter meaning, but it doesn't need to—baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the burden.

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 clearly states the verb ('Decline') and resource ('a mission'), and distinguishes it from siblings like accept_mission and abandon_mission by noting that the mission remains available for later acceptance. This makes the tool's unique purpose immediately obvious.

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 provides a specific usage condition ('Must be docked at a base where the mission is available') and implies the tool is for declining rather than abandoning by stating the mission remains available. However, it does not explicitly contrast with abandon_mission or name alternative tools, so it misses the top score.

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