Mark another faction as enemy (Requires manage_diplomacy permission. Removes from allies if present. 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.
Input schema / properties / target_faction_id / descriptionPrevious value: -"Target faction ID"New value: +"Target faction ID or 4-character faction tag (e.g. NOVA)"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only specify readOnlyHint=false, so the description takes on the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds critical information: permission requirements, the side effect of removing from allies, and accepted input forms (ID or 4-character tag). While it doesn't cover edge cases like already-enemy status, it exceeds the minimal annotation signal.
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 a single sentence that packs the action, permission requirement, side effect, and input flexibility into a compact, front-loaded format. 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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema and minimal annotations, the description sufficiently covers purpose, permission, side effect on allies, and accepted input formats. It omits potential edge-case behaviors or return values, but these aren't critical for a tool of this complexity. Slightly more detail (e.g., what happens if already enemy) would warrant a 5.
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%, with both parameters fully documented. The description repeats the target_faction_id format ('4-character faction tag e.g. NOVA') but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Thus, it neither elevates nor degrades the baseline parameter clarity.
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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Mark another faction as enemy,' which unambiguously defines the tool's purpose. It also adds relevant context (permission, side effect, accepted input formats) that distinguishes it from sibling tools like faction_declare_war or faction_remove_enemy.
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?
The description provides helpful usage context by stating the required 'manage_diplomacy' permission and the behavioral consequence of removing the target from allies if present. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools (e.g., faction_declare_war, faction_remove_enemy), so it stops short of full when-to-use/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.
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.