Propose peace to a faction you're at war with (Requires manage_diplomacy permission. Target faction leaders are notified. Accepts faction ID or 4-character faction tag (e.g. NOVA).)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| terms | No | Peace terms (optional) | |
| session_id | Yes | Your session ID from login/register | |
| target_faction_id | Yes | Target faction ID or 4-character faction tag (must be at war) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / target_faction_id / descriptionPrevious value: -"Target faction ID (must be at war)"New value: +"Target faction ID or 4-character faction tag (must be at war)"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the readOnlyHint=false annotation, the description discloses the required permission, that target leaders are notified, and that the faction can be referenced by ID or tag. It does not explicitly state that peace is not immediately established, but the word 'propose' and the sibling faction_accept_peace make this clear.
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?
Single, dense sentence that front-loads the action and packs necessary context into parentheticals. Every word earns its place.
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 proposal action with no output schema, the description covers purpose, prerequisites, notification behavior, and input format. It leaves out explicit post-proposal behavior, but that is inferable from the tool name and siblings.
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%, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats the schema's info about accepting faction ID or tag and adds no new parameter meaning beyond that.
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 tool's function: 'Propose peace to a faction you're at war with.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and is distinct from sibling tools like faction_accept_peace and faction_declare_war.
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?
It specifies the condition ('to a faction you're at war with') and mentions the required permission. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select this over related peace/war actions.
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.