Load a drone from cargo into your drone bay (Requires a drone bay module installed. Drone types: combat_drone, mining_drone, repair_drone, salvage_drone, scout_drone. Drones live in bays, not cargo — loading frees up cargo space.)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| item_id | Yes | Drone item ID from cargo (combat_drone, mining_drone, repair_drone, salvage_drone, scout_drone) | |
| 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?
With readOnlyHint=false indicating a mutation, the description adds valuable behavioral context: the drone moves from cargo to bay, requires a module, and frees cargo space. This goes beyond the annotation by explaining the specific inventory effect and prerequisite.
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 parenthetical clauses, efficiently packing purpose, prerequisite, drone types, and cargo-space effect. It is front-loaded with the core action and remains readable without excessive detail.
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 two-parameter mutation tool, the description covers the action, prerequisite, drone types, and consequence. It does not mention potential failure modes like insufficient bay capacity, but the schema handles parameter details and no output schema is expected, so the coverage is sufficient.
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%, and both parameter descriptions already explain their purpose (item_id lists drone types, session_id for login). The tool description does not add additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so 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 the action: 'Load a drone from cargo into your drone bay.' It specifies the resource (drone) and the destination (drone bay), distinguishing it from siblings like unload_drone and deploy_drone. The scope is precise and unambiguous.
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 context for when to use the tool, including the prerequisite 'Requires a drone bay module installed' and the functional effect 'loading frees up cargo space.' It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the distinction from unload_drone is implicitly clear.
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.
