Kick a player from your faction (player_id accepts a player ID or username. Requires kick permission. Cannot kick faction leader.)
| 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?
Annotations only include readOnlyHint: false, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It adds two meaningful constraints: permission requirement and leader immunity. It doesn't describe side effects (e.g., what happens to the kicked player's assets), but the key limitations are disclosed.
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, front-loaded sentence with a parenthetical that packs the essential constraints. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or fluff.
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 the core action, prerequisites, and a key limitation. It doesn't mention reversal or long-term consequences, but the checklist for invoking the tool correctly is satisfied.
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 description coverage is 100% – both player_id and session_id have descriptions. The description restates player_id's format ('player ID or username') which duplicates the schema. No new parameter semantics are added, so the baseline 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 opens with 'Kick a player from your faction' – a specific verb (kick) with a clear resource (player) and scope (from your faction). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like faction_invite or faction_promote, which handle other member actions.
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 actionable context: it notes that kick permission is required and that the faction leader cannot be kicked. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternative tools or scenarios when this tool should be avoided, though the name and verb make the primary use case obvious.
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.