List all factions (Returns faction summary with pagination. Max 100 per page.)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results (default 50, max 100) | |
| offset | No | Pagination offset | |
| 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the schema by disclosing the return type ('faction summary') and pagination behavior (max 100 per page), which helps the agent anticipate response shape without an output schema.
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 entire description is one compact sentence front-loaded with the action verb 'List', followed by a parenthetical that packs return type and pagination limits. Every clause earns its place with no filler or 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 paginated list tool, the description is adequate: full schema coverage handles parameters, annotations cover safety, and the description supplies the key missing piece (return shape) in the absence of an output schema. It could mention what fields the faction summary contains, but that is a minor gap given the tool's low complexity.
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%—limit, offset, and session_id each have their own descriptions, so the schema carries the full burden. The description's mention of pagination aligns with the offset/limit parameters but does not add new semantic details, meriting the baseline score for high coverage.
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 uses the specific verb 'List' with resource 'all factions', clearly conveying this is a list-all operation. It distinguishes from siblings like faction_info (which targets a single faction) via the 'all' scope qualifier, though it does not explicitly name alternatives. This is clear but stops short of the strongest sibling differentiation.
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?
No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as faction_info or faction_list_missions. Usage is only implied by the 'List all factions' phrasing, which signals it serves as the general listing endpoint, but no when-not or alternative selection hints are provided.
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.
