Accept a faction invitation (alias for join_faction) (Alias for join_faction. You must have a pending invite from the faction. Both names accept the same payload and produce the same result.)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| faction_id | Yes | UUID of faction to join (must have pending invite) | |
| 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?
The annotation readOnlyHint=false already indicates this is a mutating operation, and the description's verb 'accept' reinforces that. The description adds the prerequisite of having a pending invite, which is useful. However, it does not disclose what happens on success (e.g., joining the faction, side effects) or failure, leaving some behavior undocumented.
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 redundant: 'alias for join_faction' appears twice, and the parenthetical phrasing is repetitive. While short, it wastes words and could be condensed to a single clear sentence. This lacks the crispness expected for good structure.
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?
Given the tool is a simple mutation with no output schema and two well-documented parameters, the description provides the essential precondition (pending invite) and alias equivalence. However, it does not explain what the response or result looks like, leaving some ambiguity about the success/failure behavior. For a low-complexity tool, this is adequate but not comprehensive.
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?
The input schema covers both parameters (faction_id and session_id) with descriptions, achieving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no additional parameter-level context, so it relies entirely on the schema. Per the baseline for high schema coverage, a score 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?
The description clearly states the tool's action: 'Accept a faction invitation.' It also explicitly identifies itself as an alias for join_faction, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like faction_decline_invite and faction_invite. The verb and resource are specific and unambiguous.
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?
The description provides clear context: you must have a pending invite from the faction. It also explains the alias relationship with join_faction, implying both are interchangeable. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative actions like declining an invite or when not to use this tool, leaving a slight gap.
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.
