Declare war on another faction (Requires manage_diplomacy permission. Both factions enter war state. Kills are tracked. Targets are notified. Accepts faction ID or 4-character faction tag (e.g. NOVA).)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| reason | No | Reason for war (optional casus belli) | |
| 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.
Input schema / properties / target_faction_id / descriptionPrevious value: -"Target faction ID"New value: +"Target faction ID or 4-character faction tag (e.g. NOVA)"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only indicate readOnlyHint=false, so the description adds valuable behavioral context: it requires specific permission, puts both factions into a war state, tracks kills, and notifies targets. This goes beyond a simple mutation flag and informs the agent of significant side effects, though it could also mention reversibility or cooldowns.
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 sentence of about 28 words, front-loaded with the core action and using parentheticals to convey permission, effects, and input format. It is dense but not overly verbose; a slight restructuring could improve readability, but it earns most of its place.
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 state-changing tool with no output schema, the description does a good job explaining success effects (war state, kill tracking, notifications) and the permission requirement. However, it omits potential edge cases such as already being at war, alliance restrictions, or what the response contains, leaving the agent to infer some important operational details.
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 already describes all parameters with 100% coverage, including the same example tag 'NOVA' for target_faction_id. The description does not add new parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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 opens with the specific verb 'Declare war' and the resource 'another faction', making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It also explains the outcome ('Both factions enter war state') and distinguishes it from related diplomacy actions like faction_propose_peace or faction_set_enemy.
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 states a required permission ('manage_diplomacy') which provides important context for when the tool can be used. However, it does not explicitly mention when to avoid it or point to alternative tools for similar actions (e.g., faction_set_enemy). Thus, guidance is clear but lacks exclusions or alternatives.
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.