View faction trade intelligence coverage statistics (Shows stations known, items tracked, market coverage percentage, most active contributor, and trade intel level.)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| session_id | Yes | Your session ID from login/register |
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe, non-mutating read operation. The description adds value by detailing the exact statistical fields returned (stations known, items tracked, coverage percentage, etc.), which goes beyond the generic annotation hints and helps the agent understand the output's content without overstating side effects.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('View faction trade intelligence coverage statistics') followed by a parenthetical list of specific data points. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition.
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?
Given the tool's low complexity (single parameter, no output schema, read-only annotations), the description is mostly complete. It clearly states what the tool does and what stats are shown, so an agent can invoke it correctly. However, it could have mentioned that the stats are tied to the current faction/session, which would preempt ambiguity, but this is a minor gap.
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 coverage is 100% for the only parameter (session_id), with a clear description 'Your session ID from login/register'. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, but since the schema already fully describes the parameter, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 purpose: 'View faction trade intelligence coverage statistics'. It specifies exactly what information is shown (stations known, items tracked, market coverage percentage, most active contributor, trade intel level), which distinguishes it from related sibling tools like faction_intel_status (broader intel status) and faction_query_trade_intel (likely querying specific data rather than coverage stats).
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are several closely related sibling tools (faction_query_trade_intel, faction_submit_trade_intel, faction_intel_status) but the description does not mention them or explain what makes this tool the preferred choice for viewing coverage stats. The usage context is only implied by the tool name and description.
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.
