Set your status message and clan tag (Status max 64 chars, clan tag max 4 chars.)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| clan_tag | No | Clan tag (max 4 chars) | |
| session_id | Yes | Your session ID from login/register | |
| status_message | No | Status message |
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?
Annotation contradiction: the description says 'Set' (a mutating action) while annotations declare readOnlyHint=true. Additionally, the description states 'Status max 64 chars' but the schema allows maxLength 100, creating a conflicting behavioral constraint. No context about auth needs, reversibility, or response behavior is provided.
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, but it contains inaccurate and redundant information about character limits. It is short, but the mention of 'Status max 64 chars' is misleading and does not earn its place. The first part 'Set your status message and clan tag' is a clear front-loaded purpose.
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 mutation tool with no output schema and contradictory annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not mention the required session_id parameter, does not explain behavior on success/failure, and the conflicting max length adds confusion. The tool's simplicity does not compensate for the missing behavioral context.
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% so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds conflicting max length information (64 vs 100) and merely restates the clan_tag max length already in the schema. It does not clarify the role of session_id or whether status_message is optional.
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 tool's function: 'Set your status message and clan tag.' It uses a specific verb (Set) and names the resources (status message, clan tag), distinguishing it from the sibling tool get_status which retrieves status.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites beyond the implicit 'your status'. It does not mention that session_id is required or that this is for the authenticated user's own profile.
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.
