List a stored ship for sale on the exchange (List a ship stored at this base for other players to buy. Charges a 1% listing fee (non-refundable). Cannot list your active ship.)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| price | Yes | Asking price in credits | |
| ship_id | Yes | ID of the stored ship to list for sale | |
| 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 description discloses the 1% non-refundable listing fee and the restriction on listing active ships. These are behavioral details beyond the readOnlyHint: false annotation, which only indicates a write operation. No contradiction exists.
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 redundant: the opening phrase 'List a stored ship for sale on the exchange' is essentially repeated in the parenthetical 'List a ship stored at this base for other players to buy.' This repetition could be condensed, making the description less efficient than it should be.
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 3-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage and a write annotation, the description covers the core action, fee, and a critical constraint. It does not describe post-listing behavior or return values, but the lack of an output schema makes that less critical. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly.
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 input schema already documents all three parameters with clear descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds important selection context for ship_id: it must be a stored ship at this base and cannot be the active ship. This goes beyond the schema's 'stored ship' phrasing.
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 uses a specific verb ('List'), names the resource ('stored ship'), and indicates the marketplace ('exchange'), making the action distinct from siblings like sell_ship_to_order. It also clarifies scope ('at this base') and adds a key restriction (cannot list active ship), so the purpose is clear and well-differentiated.
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 clearly implies when to use the tool: to list a stored ship at a base for sale. It also provides a 'when not' by stating the active ship cannot be listed. However, it does not mention alternative tools (e.g., sell_ship_to_order) or when to prefer them, so it stops short of full usage guidance.
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.
