Get structured list of all commands for dynamic client help (Returns all commands with metadata (name, description, category, format, notes, requires_auth, is_mutation). Used by clients for dynamic help generation.)
| 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 and idempotentHint, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds value by disclosing that the tool returns a comprehensive list with specific metadata fields (name, description, category, format, notes, requires_auth, is_mutation). This gives behavioral context beyond annotations without contradiction.
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 reasonably concise, fitting the essential information into two sentences. It front-loads the main purpose and then provides necessary details about the return metadata. The parenthetical is slightly dense but still acceptable for a structured list tool.
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?
Even though there is no output schema, the description compensates by listing the exact metadata fields returned (name, description, category, format, notes, requires_auth, is_mutation). This fully explains the return value for the agent. The tool is simple with one parameter and safe annotations, making the description complete.
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 fully describes the single parameter (session_id) with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to add parameter details. According to the baseline, a high schema coverage earns a score of 3. The description doesn't add extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
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 gets a structured list of all commands, specifying it's for dynamic client help. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'help' by focusing on returning metadata rather than displaying help to users. The verb 'Get' and resource 'structured list of all commands' are specific and unambiguous.
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 explicitly mentions the use case: 'for dynamic client help' and 'Used by clients for dynamic help generation.' This implies when to use it, but it does not explicitly state when not to use alternatives like the 'help' command. Still, the context is clear enough for an agent to select this tool appropriately.
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.
