Accept a pending alliance proposal (Requires manage_diplomacy permission. Ratifies the alliance on both sides. Use faction_info to see pending alliance proposals. Accepts faction ID or 4-character faction tag (e.g. NOVA).)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| session_id | Yes | Your session ID from login/register | |
| target_faction_id | Yes | Target faction ID or 4-character faction tag (e.g. NOVA) |
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 already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false), and the description adds meaningful context by stating that it requires a specific permission and that it 'ratifies the alliance on both sides'. This discloses the side effects beyond the simple read-only flag.
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 a single, compact sentence with essential details in parentheses—permission, effect, how to find proposals, and input format. Every phrase earns its place with no filler or redundancy.
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?
For a simple two-parameter action, the description covers permission, the prerequisite of finding proposals, input formats, and the outcome of ratification. It does not describe the response format, which is a minor gap given the lack of an output schema, but the core behavior is fully specified.
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 clear descriptions for both session_id and target_faction_id. The description repeats the faction ID/tag format already present in the schema but adds no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it stays at the baseline.
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 uses specific verb 'Accept' and resource 'pending alliance proposal', clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like faction_propose_ally and faction_remove_ally. It names the exact action (accepting a proposal) and the object, leaving no ambiguity.
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 explicit guidance: requires 'manage_diplomacy' permission, tells the agent to use 'faction_info' to see pending proposals, and notes the input accepts either faction ID or a 4-character tag. This clarifies when and how to invoke the tool, including a practical prerequisite step.
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.
