Invite a player to your faction (player_id accepts a player ID or username. Requires invite permission. Target receives notification.)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| player_id | Yes | Player ID or username | |
| session_id | Yes | Your session ID from login/register |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / player_id / descriptionPrevious value: -"Player ID to invite/kick"New value: +"Player ID or username"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses useful behavioral traits beyond the readOnlyHint=false annotation: it requires invite permission and the target receives a notification. These details help the agent understand side effects and access requirements, though it omits potential failure modes or confirmation responses.
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, well-structured sentence with parenthetical clarifications. It front-loads the primary action and includes only essential information without redundancy.
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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: the action, parameter flexibility, permission requirement, and side effect. It provides enough context for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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 input schema already provides complete descriptions for both parameters (player_id: 'Player ID or username'; session_id: 'Your session ID from login/register'). The description only repeats the player_id format, adding no new parameter-level meaning.
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 'Invite' and the resource 'player to your faction,' making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like faction_accept_invite or faction_decline_invite by focusing on the invitation action itself.
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 clear context for when to use the tool (when inviting a player to your faction) and includes a prerequisite ('Requires invite permission'). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as suggesting faction_withdraw_invite for revoking an invite.
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.