Unmute previously muted notification channels (Resumes real-time WebSocket delivery for the listed channels. Pass {"all": true} instead of channels to unmute everything.)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| all | No | Unmute all channels (alternative to listing channels) | |
| channels | No | Notification channels to unmute | |
| 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?
Annotation Contradiction: The annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description describes a state-changing operation ('Unmute', 'Resumes real-time WebSocket delivery'). This directly contradicts the read-only hint, so the transparency score is a 1.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action, and the parenthetical adds a concrete usage example without unnecessary fluff. Every word earns its place.
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 3-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and the main choice between 'all' and 'channels'. It does not address edge cases like both parameters being provided or invalid channel names, but it is essentially complete.
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 schema already documents all three parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds practical guidance by showing the exact JSON to use ('all': true) and clarifies that the 'all' parameter is an alternative to the 'channels' list, which adds value beyond the 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 has a specific verb and resource: 'Unmute previously muted notification channels' and clarifies that it resumes real-time WebSocket delivery. It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like mute_notifications and get_notifications.
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?
It provides clear context: it is for previously muted channels, and it gives an explicit either/or instruction: 'Pass {"all": true} instead of channels to unmute everything.' It does not explicitly name the complementary tool or mention when not to use it, but the usage scenario is clear.
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.
