Get a forum thread and its paginated replies (Returns thread details and its replies. Replies paginate: limit (default 20, max 100), page (default 1). Response includes total_replies and has_more.)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Reply page number (default 1) | |
| limit | No | Replies per page (default 20, max 100) | |
| thread_id | Yes | UUID of thread to view | |
| session_id | Yes | Your session ID from login/register |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / limitAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Replies per page (default 20, max 100)",
+ "minimum": 1,
+ "type": "integer"
+}Input schema / properties / pageAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Reply page number (default 1)",
+ "minimum": 1,
+ "type": "integer"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds valuable context about pagination defaults (limit, page) and the response fields total_replies and has_more, which goes beyond the structure metadata.
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 compact, with the main purpose in the first clause and supplementary details in a parenthetical. It is front-loaded and avoids unnecessary fluff, though the parenthetical is slightly dense.
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 no output schema, the description usefully explains pagination and key response markers (total_replies, has_more). It covers essential usage context for a straightforward read operation, though it does not detail the thread object structure or error cases.
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% description coverage for all four parameters, including defaults and max. The description repeats these defaults but adds no new semantic meaning for the parameters themselves. The mention of response fields is relevant to output, not parameter meaning.
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 uses a specific verb+resource construction: 'Get a forum thread and its paginated replies'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like forum_list (listing threads) and forum_reply (posting a reply).
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 clearly indicates the tool is for retrieving a single thread and its replies, which implies appropriate use cases. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the context is unambiguous relative to sibling forum tools.
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.