Get detailed ship information
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ship_id | No | Ship to report on (from list_ships or faction_garages). Omit for the ship you are flying. Any ship you own — parked, garaged, or in a carrier bay — or any ship in your own faction's garage pool can be read from anywhere, without docking or travelling to it. | |
| 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 / ship_idAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Ship to report on (from list_ships or faction_garages). Omit for the ship you are flying. Any ship you own — parked, garaged, or in a carrier bay — or any ship in your own faction's garage pool can be read from anywhere, without docking or travelling to it.",
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is transparent. The description does not add behavioral context beyond this, such as whether the ship can be read from anywhere, which is instead stated in the parameter schema.
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?
'Get detailed ship information' is a single, direct sentence with no filler. It is concise and front-loaded, though slightly generic and lacking the specific constraints that would make it more informative.
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 read-only tool with rich schema descriptions and clear annotations, the description is minimally sufficient for invoking the tool correctly. However, with no output schema, it does not say what 'detailed ship information' includes or how it differs from other ship-related retrieval tools.
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 both ship_id and session_id are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, matching the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('ship information'), which clearly identifies this as a read operation for a single ship. The word 'detailed' hints at depth beyond list_ships, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or the scope of the detail.
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 no guidance on when to use get_ship versus alternatives like list_ships, get_cargo, or get_drone. The only usage context appears in the schema's ship_id description, not in the tool description itself, so the agent is left to infer selection criteria.
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.