Visit a room in your faction's common space and read its description (Step into one of your faction's rooms and read what's there. Access depends on room settings (public/members/officers).)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| room_id | Yes | ID of the room to visit | |
| 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, and the description adds valuable context that access depends on room settings (public/members/officers), which clarifies potential authorization failures. This goes beyond what annotations provide, though it doesn't discuss error behavior or return format.
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 with a parenthetical clarification. It is mostly concise and front-loaded with the main action, though the parenthetical ('Step into one of your faction's rooms and read what's there') somewhat restates the main clause, creating minor 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 read-only tool, the description covers the action, the access constraints, and the expected result (reading the room description). The schema fully documents parameters and annotations cover safety, so the description is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly, though it doesn't specify exact output structure or error handling.
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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters (room_id and session_id), so the schema already explains them fully. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, so it earns the baseline score of 3.
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 action ('Visit') and resource ('room in your faction's common space'), and specifies the exact purpose ('read its description'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like faction_rooms (listing rooms) and faction_write_room (modifying rooms), which have different actions.
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 implies the tool is for reading a room's description and notes that access depends on room settings, but it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives like faction_rooms or faction_write_room, nor does it provide direct 'when to use' vs. '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.
