Delete a custom faction role (Requires manage_roles permission. Cannot delete default roles. Members with this role are reassigned to 'member'. Your priority must exceed the role's priority.)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| role_id | Yes | ID of the role to delete. Members with this role are reassigned to 'member'. | |
| 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 description clearly states "Delete" which is a mutation, but the annotations mark readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. This is a direct contradiction. Even though the description discloses permissions and reassignment, the contradiction forces a score of 1 per the rules.
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 that packs all necessary constraints into a parenthetical. There is no wasted text; every clause adds behavioral context.
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 destructive action, the description covers permissions, default-role exclusion, member reassignment, and priority requirement. Without an output schema, it gives sufficient context for an AI agent to understand the operation's effects, though the contradictory annotation reduces trust.
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 both parameters already described in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-specific information, so it meets the baseline 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 opens with "Delete a custom faction role," which is a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like faction_create_role and faction_edit_role by focusing on deletion, and it specifies "custom" to exclude default roles.
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 gives clear conditions for use: requires manage_roles permission, cannot delete default roles, and priority constraint. It implicitly indicates when not to use (for default roles) and mentions reassignment consequences, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools.
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.
