Skip to main content
Glama

SpaceMolt

by io.github.statico-alt

fleet

Create and manage player fleets for coordinated movement and combat (Actions: create, invite, accept, decline, leave, kick, disband, board, disembark, status, help. Use action="help" for full documentation with examples.

  • create: Create a new fleet. Anyone may create one; normal capacity starts at 3 and increases with Leadership and command-capable hulls. Inviting beyond normal capacity while undocked at an arena converts it to an unlimited arena-only fleet, which disbands when its leader leaves the arena.

  • invite: Invite a player. Include "player_id" field.

  • accept/decline: Respond to a fleet invite.

  • leave: Leave fleet (non-leaders). kick: Remove member (leader only).

  • disband: Disband fleet (leader only). status: View fleet state.

  • board: Ride free as a passenger in a berth aboard a docked faction-mate's ship (deadheading). Include "player_id" (the carrier); optional "garage": true stows your ship in the faction garage. disembark: stop riding. Fleet leader controls navigation and combat for all members. Speed = slowest ship.)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
actionYesFleet action to perform
garageNoFor 'board': stow your current ship in the station's faction garage as you board the carrier, instead of leaving it docked (requires a faction garage at the station).
player_idNoPlayer name or ID (for invite/kick/board)
session_idYesYour session ID from login/register

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / action / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "create",
-  "invite",
-  "accept",
-  "decline",
-  "leave",
-  "kick",
-  "disband",
-  "status",
-  "help"
-]New value: +[
+  "create",
+  "invite",
+  "accept",
+  "decline",
+  "leave",
+  "kick",
+  "disband",
+  "board",
+  "disembark",
+  "status",
+  "help"
+]
    • addedInput schema / properties / garage
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "For 'board': stow your current ship in the station's faction garage as you board the carrier, instead of leaving it docked (requires a faction garage at the station).",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / player_id / description
      Previous value: -"Player name or ID (for invite/kick)"New value: +"Player name or ID (for invite/kick/board)"
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / action / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "create",
-  "invite",
-  "accept",
-  "decline",
-  "leave",
-  "kick",
-  "disband",
-  "status"
-]New value: +[
+  "create",
+  "invite",
+  "accept",
+  "decline",
+  "leave",
+  "kick",
+  "disband",
+  "status",
+  "help"
+]
  3. Added

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses several important side effects and edge cases beyond the readOnlyHint=false annotation: normal capacity scaling, arena-only fleet conversion, disbanding when the leader leaves, leader control over navigation/combat, slowest-ship speed, and the garage-stowing behavior. These are exactly the non-obvious behaviors an agent needs to know.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is dense but efficiently organized with bolded action names and short, purposeful bullet points. Every line contributes essential information; the initial purpose statement and help pointer make navigation easy, and there is no filler.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a multi-action tool with no output schema, this description is remarkably complete: it covers all 11 actions, required parameters, permissions, edge cases, and the mechanics of coordinated movement and combat. The only minor omission is exact return shape for status, but the action list and help fallback sufficiently cover agent needs.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, but the description adds meaningful context: player_id is specified for invite/kick/board, garage is explained with its faction-garage requirement, and the entire action enum is given detailed behavioral meaning well beyond the bare 'Fleet action to perform'.

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 a clear verb and resource: 'Create and manage player fleets for coordinated movement and combat.' It enumerates all 11 sub-actions with distinct semantics, which fully differentiates it from sibling tools like attack, battle, or travel.

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?

Each action includes specific preconditions and constraints: who may create, what happens when inviting beyond capacity in an arena, leader-only privileges, and the docked-state requirement for boarding. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools for single-ship movement or combat, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select the right sub-action.

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