Switch to a different ship stored at this station (Swap your active ship with one stored at this station. Cargo from your current ship is moved to station storage. Modules stay on their ships. Requires shipyard service.)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ship_id | Yes | ID of the ship to switch to (must be stored at current station, use list_ships to see your fleet) | |
| 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?
The description discloses non-obvious side effects beyond the readOnlyHint: false annotation: cargo moves to station storage, modules stay on their ships, and shipyard service is required. It doesn't cover every possible consequence (e.g., costs, cargo on incoming ship), but it covers the main behavioral traits.
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 sentence with a parenthetical, front-loaded with the core action and details following in a compact manner. Every phrase adds value, with no redundant text.
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 2-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, prerequisites, and key side effects. The mention of station storage, modules, and shipyard service provides enough context for an agent to use the tool correctly.
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 provides clear descriptions for both parameters: ship_id must be a stored ship and refers to list_ships, session_id is the auth token. The tool description adds little beyond what the schema already states, so it doesn't materially enhance parameter understanding.
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 begins with 'Switch to a different ship stored at this station,' clearly specifying the action (switch), resource (ship), and condition (stored at this station). It is distinct from sibling tools like buy_listed_ship or list_ships.
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 when to use it (swap active ship with a stored one) and explicitly states the prerequisite that shipyard service is required. It doesn't mention alternatives or when not to use, but the context is clear enough.
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.
