Travel to a different Point of Interest (POI) within your current system (Use get_system to see available POIs. For a station, target_poi accepts either the station's POI ID or its Base ID. Consumes fuel based on ship speed and distance.)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| session_id | Yes | Your session ID from login/register | |
| target_poi | Yes | POI ID to travel to (use get_system to see available POIs). For a station, either its POI ID or Base ID is accepted. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / target_poi / descriptionPrevious value: -"UUID of the POI to travel to (use get_system to see available POIs)"New value: +"POI ID to travel to (use get_system to see available POIs). For a station, either its POI ID or Base ID is accepted."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only set readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries the burden of disclosing side effects. It explicitly states fuel is consumed based on ship speed and distance, which is a meaningful behavioral consequence beyond the annotation. It also clarifies the accepted target identifier for stations (POI ID or Base ID), though that is more parameter-related.
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, front-loaded sentence followed by a compact parenthetical with prerequisites and exceptions. It has no filler, but it does duplicate the target_poi explanation already present in the schema, which is a minor 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?
For a simple 2-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the core: what action, scope, prerequisite, the station exception, and a side effect (fuel). It doesn't mention potential failure conditions or post-travel state, but those are not essential given the low complexity and sibling 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?
Both parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage), so the description adds no new parameter meaning. The target_poi clarification about station Base ID appears verbatim in the schema description, and the session_id is already explained in the schema. Thus a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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?
States a specific verb 'Travel' and resource 'Point of Interest within your current system', which immediately separates it from jump for inter-system travel. It also names get_system as the way to discover POIs, so the agent knows what to call first.
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 clearly scopes travel to within the current system, an implicit exclusion of cross-system travel, and instructs the agent to use get_system to find targets. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools like jump or dock, but the context is sufficient to select it for intra-system POI movement.
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.