Edit a custom faction role (Requires manage_roles permission. Cannot edit default roles (leader, officer, member, recruit). Your priority must exceed the role's priority.)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | New role name (optional) | |
| role_id | Yes | ID of the role to edit | |
| session_id | Yes | Your session ID from login/register | |
| permissions | No | Updated permission flags |
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 says 'Edit' which implies a write/mutation operation, but the annotations declare readOnlyHint=true. This is a direct contradiction. The description does not reconcile this discrepancy and instead adds no behavioral clarity beyond the annotation conflict. This warrants a score of 1 and flags an annotation contradiction.
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 that front-loads the action and resource ('Edit a custom faction role') and packs essential constraints into a parenthetical. Every word adds value, and there is no redundancy or filler.
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 important contextual constraints (permission, default roles, priority) which is valuable for an edit operation. However, the contradiction with the readOnlyHint annotation undermines the overall understanding of the tool's behavior. Without an output schema and with the annotation conflict, the description leaves the agent uncertain about whether this is a safe read or a mutating write, so it is not fully complete.
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 provides 100% coverage with meaningful descriptions for all parameters, including the nested permissions object. The description adds no additional parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema's own documentation, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 ('Edit') and the resource ('a custom faction role'), distinguishing it from the default roles. It also narrows the scope by specifying 'custom', which differentiates it from tools like faction_create_role or faction_delete_role based on the operation type.
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 when-to-use guidance by stating required permission ('manage_roles'), an exclusion (cannot edit default roles), and a precondition (priority must exceed the role's priority). It does not name alternative tools but clearly states when it is not applicable, which is strong usage guidance.
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.
