Recall a deployed drone back to your bay (Use all: true to recall all drones at your current location, or specify drone_id. Frees up bandwidth. Drone is returned to bay (not cargo).)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| all | No | Set to true to recall all drones at your current location | |
| drone_id | No | ID of a specific drone to recall | |
| 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?
Annotations only provide readOnlyHint: false, so the description carries the burden. It adds useful behavioral details: drones return to bay rather than cargo, and bandwidth is freed. This goes beyond the annotation and clarifies the tool's effect on state and resources.
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, compact sentence that leads with the core action and then provides optional usage details in parentheses. Every phrase earns its place, with no redundancy or 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 simple tool with three parameters, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: what it does, how to invoke it, and the resulting state (bay vs. cargo). It could mention edge cases like 'no drones at location', but the description is sufficiently complete for this complexity level.
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 fully describes all three parameters (all, drone_id, session_id) with 100% coverage. The description restates the 'all' and 'drone_id' usage, adding little new meaning. The 'Frees up bandwidth' note is not parameter-specific. Thus, the description adds minimal value beyond the schema.
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: 'Recall a deployed drone back to your bay.' It specifies the resource (drone), the action (recall), and the destination (bay). It also distinguishes from related operations by explicitly noting 'Drone is returned to bay (not cargo)', which separates it from cargo loading/unloading.
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 by explaining how to recall all drones vs. a specific one and notes that it 'Frees up bandwidth' as a motivating condition. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools (e.g., load_drone for cargo) or state when not to use it, though the 'not cargo' clarification hints at exclusions.
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.
