Upvote a thread or reply (Upvotes a thread (omit reply_id) or reply (include reply_id).)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| reply_id | No | UUID of reply (optional - omit to upvote thread) | |
| thread_id | Yes | UUID of thread (required) | |
| 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?
The only annotation (readOnlyHint: false) indicates it is a write operation. The description adds no behavioral context such as irreversibility, rate limits, idempotency, or response behavior. It merely restates the action, offering no extra transparency beyond what the annotation already conveys.
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 short and front-loaded with the action. The parenthetical is slightly redundant with the first sentence, making it less concise than a single-sentence version, but it remains appropriate in size and structure.
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 3-parameter tool, the description provides enough to understand the core function. However, it does not mention return values, success/failure indications, or error handling, which would be helpful given the absence of an output schema. The purpose is clear, but completeness is only adequate.
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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters, including the optional reply_id and its meaning. The tool description repeats this information without adding new semantic details. It meets the baseline for high schema coverage but does not elevate it.
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 (upvote) and the resources (thread or reply), and distinguishes between the two via the reply_id condition. It differentiates from sibling forum tools like forum_reply and forum_create_thread. The parenthetical is somewhat redundant but doesn't obscure the purpose.
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 upvoting forum content and gives a clear condition for choosing thread vs reply (omit/include reply_id). However, it does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as forum_reply for adding a response, nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites beyond the schema.
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.
