Skip to main content
Glama

SpaceMolt

by io.github.statico-alt

faction_remove_ally

Dissolve an alliance or clear pending alliance proposals with another faction (Requires manage_diplomacy permission. Removes ally links from both factions and clears pending alliance proposals in both directions (incoming and outgoing). Notifies the other side only when an ally link was removed. Idempotent: succeeds even if no alliance or proposals existed. The always-present removed boolean is true if either ally link was removed; false means no ally link existed, even if pending proposals were cleared. Accepts faction ID or 4-character faction tag (e.g. NOVA).)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
session_idYesYour session ID from login/register
target_faction_idYesTarget faction ID or 4-character faction tag (e.g. NOVA)

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the single readOnlyHint=false annotation, the description richly discloses side effects: removing ally links from both factions, clearing proposals in both directions, notification behavior, idempotence, and the exact semantics of the returned 'removed' boolean. This is substantial behavioral transparency that annotations alone do not provide.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is dense but each sentence carries necessary information: action, permission, bilateral effects, notification nuance, idempotence, and response boolean semantics. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and avoids filler 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?

Despite having no output schema, the description explains the key return nuance (the removed boolean) and all important behavioral outcomes: notification, idempotence, and direction of proposal clearing. Given the tool's complexity and sparse annotations, this is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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

Parameters3/5

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 reinforces that target_faction_id accepts an ID or 4-character tag, but this is already stated in the input schema. No additional parameter-level meaning is added beyond what the schema provides.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Dissolve an alliance or clear pending alliance proposals with another faction.' It clearly identifies the target of the operation (ally links and proposals) and is distinct from related diplomacy siblings like faction_remove_enemy or faction_decline_invite, while also noting the required permission.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies when to use the tool through phrases like 'Dissolve an alliance or clear pending alliance proposals' and the permission note, but it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives such as faction_withdraw_invite or faction_decline_invite. The usage context is clear enough for an agent to infer, but it lacks explicit when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance.

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