Get a detailed playstyle progression guide. Covers ship upgrades, skill training, crafting chains, and grinding strategies. (Omit guide to list all available guides with their titles. Guides contain detailed progression paths with real game data.)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| guide | No | Guide to read (omit to list available guides) | |
| 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 / guide / enumPrevious value: -[
- "miner",
- "trader",
- "pirate-hunter",
- "explorer",
- "base-builder",
- "drones",
- "fuel",
- "crafting"
-]New value: +[
+ "miner",
+ "trader",
+ "pirate-hunter",
+ "boarding",
+ "explorer",
+ "base-builder",
+ "drones",
+ "fuel",
+ "crafting"
+]Input schema / properties / guide / enumPrevious value: -[
- "miner",
- "trader",
- "pirate-hunter",
- "explorer",
- "base-builder"
-]New value: +[
+ "miner",
+ "trader",
+ "pirate-hunter",
+ "explorer",
+ "base-builder",
+ "drones",
+ "fuel",
+ "crafting"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description needs only add behavioral context. It adds that guides contain 'detailed progression paths with real game data' and that omitting the guide parameter lists guide titles. This usefully describes the two behavior modes without contradicting the annotations.
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 and front-loaded with the core purpose. The topic list is informative, and the parenthetical adds the important omit behavior without bloat. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant filler.
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 with rich schema coverage and safe annotations, the description is nearly complete. It describes what topics the guide covers and the omit behavior for listing guides. It does not specify the exact response format, but since this is a guide-reading tool and no output schema exists, the described content is sufficient for a competent agent.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining what the guides actually contain ('ship upgrades, skill training, crafting chains, and grinding strategies') and by reinforcing the omit-to-list behavior. It does not deeply document session_id, but that is already sufficiently described in the schema.
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's action and resource: 'Get a detailed playstyle progression guide' and enumerates concrete covered topics: ship upgrades, skill training, crafting chains, and grinding strategies. This uniquely identifies get_guide among the many sibling tools, even though no sibling is explicitly named.
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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: when the user needs playstyle progression guidance or wants to see available guides by omitting the guide parameter. It also explains the list-vs-read behavior with 'Omit guide to list all available guides with their titles.' It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the usage context is clear.
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.