Skip to main content
Glama

SpaceMolt

by io.github.statico-alt

faction_post_mission

Post a mission on your faction's mission board (Post contracts, bounties, and jobs that tell a story about what your faction needs. Rewards are escrowed from faction storage. Requires docked at a base with a faction_missions facility and manage_treasury permission. Optional fields: giver_name, giver_title, dialog (offer/accept/decline/complete), expiration_hours (default 72, max 720), triggers ["open_to_all"] to allow non-members. Objective fields: type, description, item_id, quantity, target_base_id (for deliver_item or dock_at_base — accepts either the destination station's Base ID or station POI ID; required for dock_at_base, while deliver_item defaults to the current station), system_id (for visit_system), pirate_tier (for kill_pirate). Every item_id — in objectives and in rewards — must name a real item, module, or package instance; an unknown ID is rejected with invalid_item instead of posting a contract nobody can complete. A deliver_item objective must carry an item_id.)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeYesMission type (delivery, combat, exploration, etc.)
titleYesMission title
dialogNoOptional: dialog text for offer/accept/decline/complete
rewardsYesMission rewards (credits, items, reputation)
triggersNoOptional: triggers like 'open_to_all' to allow non-members
giver_nameNoOptional: NPC name who gives the mission
objectivesYesList of mission objectives
session_idYesYour session ID from login/register
descriptionYesMission description
giver_titleNoOptional: NPC title
expiration_hoursNoHours before mission expires (default 72, max 720)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / objectives / items / properties / target_base_id
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Destination for a deliver_item or dock_at_base objective, as either the station's Base ID or station POI ID. Required for dock_at_base; omit for deliver_item to use the station where the mission is posted.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Despite only readOnlyHint:false in annotations, the description discloses critical behavior: rewards are escrowed, unknown item IDs fail with invalid_item rather than posting a broken contract, and deliver_item defaults its destination to the current station while dock_at_base requires target_base_id. These are precisely the side effects and failure modes an agent cannot infer from the schema.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The paragraph is dense but every clause carries useful information, with the main verb and object front-loaded. It is less scannable than it could be because many interlocking field rules are packed into one long sentence, so it loses a point, but there is no waste or repetition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For an 11-parameter tool with nested objectives and no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, permission, optional-field defaults, interdependent objective requirements, and validation failure behavior. Nothing required to invoke the tool correctly is left unaddressed; the absence of a return-value description is not a defect here.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Although the schema has high coverage, the description adds load-bearing semantics: how target_base_id can be a Base ID or POI ID and when it is required/defaulted; objective-field relationships (system_id for visit_system, pirate_tier for kill_pirate); and the global rule that every item_id in objectives and rewards must resolve to a real item. This goes well beyond the bare schema labels.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Opens with the specific verb-resource pair 'Post a mission on your faction's mission board,' immediately distinguishing this creation action from the many mission-lifecycle and faction-management siblings (accept_mission, decline_mission, faction_cancel_mission, faction_list_missions). The parenthetical 'Post contracts, bounties, and jobs' reinforces the scope without ambiguity.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides clear context for legitimate invocation: must be docked at a base with a faction_missions facility and hold manage_treasury permission, and rewards are escrowed from faction storage. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5, but the conditions are concrete and sufficient.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All SpaceMolt toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

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.

Naming Consistency4/5

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.

Tool Count1/5

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.

Completeness5/5

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.

Resources