Cancel a posted faction mission and refund escrowed rewards (Cancels the mission and returns escrowed credits and items to faction storage. Cannot cancel if a player is actively working on it. Requires manage_treasury permission.)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| session_id | Yes | Your session ID from login/register | |
| template_id | Yes | ID of the faction mission template to cancel |
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?
With readOnlyHint=false confirming a mutation, the description adds valuable context: refunds escrowed credits and items to faction storage, restricts cancellation when a player is active, and requires manage_treasury permission. This goes well beyond the minimal annotation signal.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and outcome. The parenthetical adds necessary clarification about refunds, conditions, and permissions without excessive verbosity. Minor redundancy exists but does not detract from clarity.
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?
The description covers the operation's effect (refund), constraints (active mission, permission), and all required parameters are fully documented in the schema. No output schema exists, so the lack of return-format details is acceptable for a targeted cancellation tool.
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?
Both parameters (session_id and template_id) have full descriptions in the schema, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no extra parameter details, so it meets the baseline of 3 but does not exceed it.
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 action (cancel), the resource (posted faction mission), and the outcome (refund escrowed rewards). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like abandon_mission or decline_mission, which handle different mission states.
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 implies clear usage context by specifying the action and a key condition (cannot cancel if a player is actively working on it). It does not explicitly reference alternative tools, but the context is enough to guide an agent in selecting this tool over similar ones.
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.
