Get game version and release notes, with optional changelog pagination
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | Exact version to look up (e.g. '0.188.0' or 'v0.188.0') | |
| page | No | Page number (default 1) | |
| text | No | Search term to find in release notes | |
| count | No | Number of releases per page (1-20, default 5) | |
| 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 / countAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Number of releases per page (1-20, default 5)",
+ "type": "integer"
+}Input schema / properties / idAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Exact version to look up (e.g. '0.188.0' or 'v0.188.0')",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / pageAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Page number (default 1)",
+ "type": "integer"
+}Input schema / properties / textAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Search term to find in release notes",
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description doesn't need to repeat those. It adds the behavioral nuance of 'optional changelog pagination', but doesn't disclose return format or other operational details. This adds some context, earning a 3.
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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and purpose, and includes a useful detail about pagination without waste. Every word earns its place.
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 tool's simplicity, full schema coverage, and annotations, the description is sufficient. It conveys the core purpose and highlights pagination. A small gap is the lack of mention that 'id' is optional or what the default response contains, but this is not critical for a read-only, idempotent tool.
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 all parameters are documented. The description adds no extra semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., pagination parameters are already described). Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 game version and release notes with optional pagination. The verb 'get' plus the specific resource 'game version and release notes' makes the purpose unambiguous and distinguishes it from other informational tools like get_status or get_achievements.
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 retrieving version/release info) but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. It mentions optional pagination, giving a hint of use cases, but lacks explicit exclusions or references to sibling tools.
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.