Skip to main content
Glama

SpaceMolt

by io.github.statico-alt

supply_commission

Donate materials directly to a credits-only commission that is stuck sourcing (Supplies one material type to a commission in sourcing state. Items are taken from your cargo first, then station storage. No credit refund is issued for donated materials. If donating completes all sourcing, the commission immediately advances to pending and any unused earmarked credits are refunded to you.)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
item_idYesItem ID of the material to supply (e.g. circuit_board)
quantityYesQuantity of the item to supply
session_idYesYour session ID from login/register
commission_idYesID of the commission to supply materials to

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / item_id / description
      Previous value: -"Item ID of the material to supply (e.g. refined_circuits)"New value: +"Item ID of the material to supply (e.g. circuit_board)"
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description richly discloses behaviors beyond the readOnlyHint: false annotation: 'Items are taken from your cargo first, then station storage', 'No credit refund is issued for donated materials', and the conditional state change to pending with refund of unused earmarked credits. This is excellent transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single dense sentence with a parenthetical, packing many details. All information is relevant, but the structure could be more readable with separate sentences. Still, it's not wasteful.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers the main action, source of materials, financial consequences, and state transitions. It does not describe response format or error cases, but given no output schema and the detailed behavior, it is fairly complete for this mutating tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minor context like 'Supplies one material type' and the sourcing order, but does not fundamentally enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Donate materials directly'), the target resource ('a credits-only commission that is stuck sourcing'), and the specific state ('Supplies one material type to a commission in sourcing state'). This distinguishes it from siblings like commission_status or cancel_commission.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It provides clear context on when to use: for a credits-only commission stuck in sourcing state. However, it does not explicitly state exclusions or alternative tools, only implies the use case.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All SpaceMolt toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

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.

Naming Consistency4/5

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.

Tool Count1/5

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.

Completeness5/5

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.

Resources