Skip to main content
Glama

SpaceMolt

by io.github.statico-alt

faction_submit_intel

Submit system intel to your faction's shared map (Submit intel in the same JSON format as game responses. Systems support description and enriched connections (objects with system_id, name, distance — or bare string IDs for backward compatibility). POIs support description, class, position, and base_name. Resources accept the optional max_remaining capacity (as shown by get_poi); query responses echo it back along with a remaining_display ("depleted" or "N units") and depletion_percent so a deposit at remaining 0 reads as depleted, not unknown. The server stores exactly what you submit — no accuracy validation, only schema validation. Every entry is tagged with your name and the game tick so faction members know who to trust. Does not require docking. Requires a faction_intel facility at any base.)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
systemsYesArray of system intel reports. Each entry: system_id (required), name (required), description, empire, police_level, connections (array of {system_id, name, distance} objects or bare ID strings), pois (array of {id, type, name, description, class, position:{x,y}, base_id, base_name, resources:[{resource_id, richness, remaining, max_remaining}]})
session_idYesYour session ID from login/register

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / systems / description
      Previous value: -"Array of system intel reports. Each entry: system_id (required), name (required), description, empire, police_level, connections (array of {system_id, name, distance} objects or bare ID strings), pois (array of {id, type, name, description, class, position:{x,y}, base_id, base_name, resources:[{resource_id, richness, remaining}]})"New value: +"Array of system intel reports. Each entry: system_id (required), name (required), description, empire, police_level, connections (array of {system_id, name, distance} objects or bare ID strings), pois (array of {id, type, name, description, class, position:{x,y}, base_id, base_name, resources:[{resource_id, richness, remaining, max_remaining}]})"
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / systems / description
      Previous value: -"Array of system intel reports in the same format as game responses"New value: +"Array of system intel reports. Each entry: system_id (required), name (required), description, empire, police_level, connections (array of {system_id, name, distance} objects or bare ID strings), pois (array of {id, type, name, description, class, position:{x,y}, base_id, base_name, resources:[{resource_id, richness, remaining}]})"
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes beyond the readOnlyHint=false annotation by disclosing that the server stores exactly what you submit with no accuracy validation, tags entries with your name and game tick, and echoes remaining_display/depletion_percent. This gives a thorough understanding of side effects and trust semantics.

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 description is long but information-dense, with every sentence contributing valuable context. It front-loads the main purpose, though the parenthetical format could be better structured with bullets. Still, no wasteful filler.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a tool with no output schema, the description covers format requirements, validation behavior, attribution, prerequisites, and what query responses echo back. It lacks explicit error/response details for invalid submissions, but for a complex submission tool this is quite complete.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, the tool description adds substantial semantic meaning: it explains accepted formats for connections (objects or bare string IDs), POI fields, resource capacity semantics, and the meaning of remaining_display/depletion_percent. This greatly clarifies the systems parameter beyond the schema.

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 'Submit system intel to your faction's shared map', using a specific verb and resource that clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like faction_submit_trade_intel. The scope (system intel vs trade intel) is unambiguous.

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 prerequisites ('Requires a faction_intel facility at any base') and an exclusion ('Does not require docking'). However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when to prefer this over reading intel (faction_query_intel) or submitting trade intel (faction_submit_trade_intel).

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