Sell a towed wreck to an NPC salvage yard for credits (Must be docked at an NPC station with a salvage yard. The yard keeps the hull's materials and cargo and pays a fraction of their local market value from the station manager's credits; a broke manager can't buy. Player-owned yards don't buy wrecks. scrap_wreck recovers far more, as materials.)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 declare readOnlyHint=false, leaving the description to carry the behavioral burden. The description does this well: the yard keeps materials and cargo, payment comes from the manager's credits, and player-owned yards won't buy. It could additionally state that the wreck is consumed or what happens to the tow, but the exchange mechanics are clearly disclosed.
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 core action is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by a dense but well-organized parenthetical covering prerequisites, economics, exclusions, and alternatives. No sentence is wasted, and the structure supports quick scanning.
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 one-parameter sell action with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, payment mechanics, failure conditions, and the key alternative. It does not explicitly confirm which wreck is sold (the currently towed one is implied) or describe the response, but these are minor gaps for such a simple action.
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 only parameter, session_id, is fully described in the schema, so baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific nuance, but none is needed for a standard session identifier.
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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair: 'Sell a towed wreck to an NPC salvage yard for credits.' It clearly names the recipient, the payment, and the subject, and distinguishes itself from related tools like scrap_wreck and loot_wreck.
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?
Explicitly states prerequisites ('Must be docked at an NPC station with a salvage yard'), exclusions ('Player-owned yards don't buy wrecks'), a failure condition ('a broke manager can't buy'), and an alternative ('scrap_wreck recovers far more, as materials'). This is full routing 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.
