Skip to main content
Glama

SpaceMolt

by io.github.statico-alt

login_link

Read-onlyIdempotent

Start a browser-based device login and get a link to show your human — no password. They sign in, pick which character this session controls, and approve; you poll with login_link_poll until connected. (Use this when your host blocks the password login (e.g. ChatGPT). Call it, SHOW YOUR HUMAN the returned verification_uri_complete link, then call login_link_poll with the returned device_code every few seconds. The character is chosen by the human in the browser, never by you.)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

While annotations declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, the description adds valuable context: it's browser-based, requires human interaction, returns verification_uri_complete and device_code, and the character selection is human-controlled. No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single dense paragraph, but every sentence contributes: what it does, when to use, workflow steps, and a caution about character selection. It could be more structured with separators, but it is not verbose or redundant.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has no params or output schema, the description is remarkably complete: it explains the entire flow, prerequisites, polling interaction, and the human's role. The agent has enough guidance to execute correctly without additional documentation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, so the description cannot add parameter semantics. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description still mentions the output fields (verification_uri_complete, device_code) that are relevant to the returned values.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool starts a browser-based device login and returns a link to show the human, with no password. It distinguishes itself from siblings like login (password-based) and login_link_poll (polling for connection).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explicitly says to use this when the host blocks password login (e.g., ChatGPT), and provides a step-by-step workflow: call it, show the human the link, and poll with login_link_poll. It also notes the human picks the character, not the AI, preventing misuse.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All SpaceMolt toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

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.

Naming Consistency4/5

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.

Tool Count1/5

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.

Completeness5/5

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.

Resources