Set your ship colors (Colors must be valid hex codes.)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | No | Combined shorthand: 'primary,secondary' hex pair (e.g. 'FF0000,00FF00'); overrides the individual color fields | |
| session_id | Yes | Your session ID from login/register | |
| primary_color | No | Primary color (hex code, e.g., #FF0000) | |
| secondary_color | No | Secondary color (hex code, e.g., #00FF00) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / textAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Combined shorthand: 'primary,secondary' hex pair (e.g. 'FF0000,00FF00'); overrides the individual color fields",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "session_id",
- "primary_color",
- "secondary_color"
-]New value: +[
+ "session_id"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description states 'Set', which is a write operation, but annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. This is a direct contradiction, as setting colors mutates state. The description provides no additional context to mitigate this misleading annotation.
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, concise sentence that front-loads the action and includes a necessary constraint. No wasted words or redundancy.
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?
Given the tool's low complexity and rich schema, the description is mostly sufficient. However, it does not mention the two methods of setting colors (combined shorthand vs individual fields) or the override relationship, and the annotation contradiction undermines overall reliability.
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% with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds the general hex code requirement, but does not clarify the 'text' shorthand override behavior or any interaction between parameters, which is already in the schema. Thus, it adds minimal value beyond 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 'Set your ship colors' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating the action on ship colors. It is unambiguous and distinguishes this tool from all sibling tools, as none others deal with color customization.
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 implies the tool is used when you want to set ship colors and adds a constraint that colors must be valid hex codes. It lacks explicit alternatives or when-not usage, but given the tool's uniqueness, this is adequate context.
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.