Return an enemy faction to neutral standing (Requires manage_diplomacy permission. Idempotent: succeeds even if the target was not an enemy. Does not end active wars — use faction_propose_peace for that. Accepts faction ID or 4-character faction tag (e.g. NOVA).)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| session_id | Yes | Your session ID from login/register | |
| target_faction_id | Yes | Target faction ID or 4-character faction tag (e.g. NOVA) |
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?
Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses idempotency (succeeds even if target was not an enemy), permission requirements, and the limitation regarding active wars. These are key behavioral traits not captured by annotations.
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 compact yet information-dense, front-loading the primary purpose and then adding caveats in parentheses. Every clause adds value, with no redundancy or filler.
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 mutation tool, the description covers permissions, input formats, idempotency, and relationship to other actions. Even without an output schema, it provides sufficient guidance for correct invocation.
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?
The schema already covers both parameters completely, including the faction ID/tag format. The description repeats the tag example but adds no new semantic information, so the baseline score 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 explicitly states the action ('Return an enemy faction to neutral standing') with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting it does not end active wars, directing to faction_propose_peace.
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 provides explicit usage context: requires 'manage_diplomacy' permission, and clearly states when not to use it (for ending wars) with an alternative tool named. This goes beyond implied usage.
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.
