Accept a peace proposal (Requires manage_diplomacy permission. Ends the war. Use faction_info to see pending peace 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 | Faction ID or 4-character tag of peace proposer |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / target_faction_id / descriptionPrevious value: -"Faction ID of peace proposer"New value: +"Faction ID or 4-character tag of peace proposer"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description goes beyond the annotation (readOnlyHint=false) by explicitly stating the war-ending consequence, permission requirement, and input flexibility (faction ID or 4-character tag). This gives the agent essential behavioral context for a write operation with meaningful side effects.
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, efficient sentence with a parenthetical packed with essential details. It front-loads the action and includes necessary context without redundancy, earning its place with every clause.
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?
Despite having no output schema, the description covers the purpose, permission, effect, how to find proposals, and accepted input format. For a 2-parameter tool with this action's simplicity, the description fully equips an agent to select and invoke it correctly.
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 schema already describes both params at 100% coverage, including 'Faction ID or 4-character tag' for target_faction_id. The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond an example 'NOVA', which is minor. Baseline 3 is appropriate given schema coverage is high.
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 verb 'Accept' and the resource 'a peace proposal', which precisely identifies the tool's function. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like faction_propose_peace by focusing on acceptance, and mentions specific details (faction ID/tag) that uniquely scope its operation.
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 explicit usage context: requires `manage_diplomacy` permission, ends the war, and instructs to use faction_info for pending proposals. While it doesn't explicitly state 'when not to use', it gives enough situational guidance to select this over alternatives, especially given no direct sibling 'decline' tool exists.
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.