Send a petition to an empire's government (Submits a message to the leadership of any empire. Rate limited to one petition per empire per hour. Empire IDs: solarian, voidborn, crimson, nebula, outerrim.)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| message | Yes | Message to send to empire leadership (max 1000 characters) | |
| empire_id | Yes | Empire to petition (solarian, voidborn, crimson, nebula, outerrim) | |
| 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 explicitly describes a write operation ('Send', 'Submits a message') while the annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. This is a direct contradiction, making the description misleading about the tool's side effects. Rate limiting also conflicts with idempotency expectations.
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, front-loaded sentence that conveys purpose, rate limit, and valid input values without waste. Every phrase adds value and is easy to parse.
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?
Without an output schema, the description does not explain what the tool returns or how errors (like rate limiting) are surfaced. It covers the core action and constraints, but lacks behavioral details such as response format, error handling, or the consequence of exceeding the rate limit.
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 schema already provides 100% parameter coverage, including descriptions for session_id, empire_id, and message, plus enum values and max length. The description adds no meaningful parameter details beyond what is in the schema, so the baseline of 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 action ('Send a petition') and the resource ('empire's government'), and adds context by defining it as submitting a message to any empire's leadership. This distinguishes it from other communication tools and fully conveys its purpose.
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 context, including the rate limit and valid empire IDs. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the tool is unique enough that the purpose inherently defines when to use it.
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.
