List your note documents (paginated) (Returns a page of the notes you own with titles and metadata (not full content). Paginates: page (default 1), page_size (default 20, max 100). Response includes total_count and has_more.)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number (default 1) | |
| page_size | No | Notes per page (default 20, max 100) | |
| 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 / pageAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Page number (default 1)",
+ "minimum": 1,
+ "type": "integer"
+}Input schema / properties / page_sizeAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Notes per page (default 20, max 100)",
+ "minimum": 1,
+ "type": "integer"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds useful behavioral details such as pagination defaults (page=1, page_size=20/max 100), response fields (total_count, has_more), and that only metadata is returned, not full content. This goes beyond what annotations provide.
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 informative, but the nested parentheses and repetitive phrasing make it slightly awkward to read. All sentences contribute useful details, and it is front-loaded with the main purpose.
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 list tool with strong annotations and full schema descriptions, the description sufficiently covers pagination behavior and response fields. It does not mention sorting or multi-page navigation strategies, but these are not critical given the output metadata.
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 coverage is 100% with each parameter already described (page, page_size, session_id). The description repeats these defaults and max value but does not add new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 applies.
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 'List your note documents (paginated)' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like read_note (which presumably returns full content) by explicitly saying 'titles and metadata (not full content)'.
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 usage for listing notes owned by the user and notes that it returns metadata only, which hints at using read_note for content. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide exclusion criteria, so guidance is implied but not overt.
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.