Get help for commands (Omit topic to see all commands. Specify a command name, category, or search term for detailed help.)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| topic | No | Command name, category, or search term to get help for (optional - omit to see all commands) | |
| 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 / categoryRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Category to list commands for (optional)",
- "type": "string"
-}Input schema / properties / commandRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Command to get help for (optional - omit to see all categories)",
- "type": "string"
-}Input schema / properties / topicAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Command name, category, or search term to get help for (optional - omit to see all commands)",
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already indicate the tool is read-only and idempotent, so the description's job is lighter. It adds useful behavioral context about the two modes of operation (omit vs. specify topic) and what the user can expect. It doesn't describe return format or error handling, but for a simple help tool with strong annotations, this is sufficient.
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 with a parenthetical that efficiently conveys the main purpose and usage. It is front-loaded with the core verb and resource, and every clause adds useful information without redundancy. There is no unnecessary 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 low-complexity help tool with no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it explains the purpose, the optional parameter behavior, and implies the output is help text. The required session_id is not mentioned in the description but is adequately documented in the schema. Minor gaps like what 'detailed help' looks like prevent a perfect score.
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%, with both topic and session_id already described in the input schema. The description essentially repeats the topic parameter's behavior ('Omit topic to see all commands...'), adding no new semantic meaning beyond the schema. Per the rubric, baseline for high schema coverage is 3, and no extra value is added.
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 purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Get help for commands.' It explains that omitting the topic shows all commands and specifying a topic provides detailed help. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_commands or get_guide, which may also relate to command help.
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 provides clear usage guidance for the tool's own parameter: omit the topic to see all commands, or specify a command name, category, or search term for detailed help. It does not, however, offer guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_commands or get_guide, which is a notable gap given the large sibling list.
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.