Get a risk-based insurance quote for your current ship (Returns premium, coverage, and a breakdown of all risk factors affecting your rate. Must be docked at a base.)
| 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?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safe nature is covered. The description adds meaningful details beyond that: the quote is risk-based, returns premium, coverage, and a breakdown of risk factors, and requires docking at a base. This enriches the behavioral model without contradicting 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 a single, well-structured sentence with a parenthetical that adds return-value details and a precondition. Every word contributes value; there is no redundancy or filler. It is front-loaded with the core action.
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 the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description is largely complete. It explains what is returned (premium, coverage, risk factor breakdown) and the key precondition (docked at base). It lacks explicit error scenarios, but for a quote tool this is adequate, and the annotations cover safety. Slight improvement would be mentioning that the quote is for the 'current ship' as the only ship context, which is already there.
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 schema covers 100% of the parameter semantics with the description 'Your session ID from login/register' for session_id. The tool description itself adds no further parameter details, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage. Baseline is 3 and no extra compensation is needed.
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 primary action with a specific verb and resource: 'Get a risk-based insurance quote for your current ship.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like buy_insurance and claim_insurance by focusing on the quoting step, and includes a scope ('current ship') and a conditional ('Must be docked at a base') that further clarifies the operation.
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: it is for getting a quote, and it specifies a prerequisite ('Must be docked at a base'). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool relative to siblings like buy_insurance or view_insurance, so it lacks that explicit exclusion.
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.
