Skip to main content
Glama

SpaceMolt

by io.github.statico-alt

write_note

Read-onlyIdempotent

Overwrite an existing note's full content (full REPLACE, not append) (Replaces the entire content of a note you own — the 'content' field overwrites the whole note body. There is no append mode. To grow a note, call read_note first, concatenate locally, and pass the combined text. Requires docking.)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
contentYesReplacement content for the note. This REPLACES the entire note body — there is no append mode. To grow a note, call read_note first and pass the combined text.
note_idYesUUID of the note to overwrite
session_idYesYour session ID from login/register

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / content / description
      Previous value: -"New content for the note"New value: +"Replacement content for the note. This REPLACES the entire note body — there is no append mode. To grow a note, call read_note first and pass the combined text."
    • changedInput schema / properties / note_id / description
      Previous value: -"UUID of the note to update"New value: +"UUID of the note to overwrite"
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

The description contradicts the annotations: it states 'Overwrite an existing note's full content' and 'Replaces the entire content', clearly indicating a write operation, while annotations set readOnlyHint=true. This is a severe inconsistency that misleads the agent about the tool's side effects.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is somewhat repetitive, with 'full REPLACE' and 'Replaces the entire content...' saying the same thing, but it is still front-loaded with the core purpose. It could be tightened without losing value.

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 essential context: replace semantics, no append mode, the read_note workaround, and the docking requirement. It lacks error behavior or return details, but for a simple overwrite operation, this is sufficient. The annotation contradiction is a separate issue.

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% with detailed parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds little beyond the schema; it repeats the replace semantic but does not clarify any additional parameter meanings beyond what is already in 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 tool's function: 'Overwrite an existing note's full content' with the specific verb 'Overwrite' and resource 'note'. It also explicitly differentiates from append operations with '(full REPLACE, not append)', making it distinct from other note tools.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It explicitly provides usage guidance: 'To grow a note, call read_note first, concatenate locally, and pass the combined text.' This tells the agent when to use this tool versus the alternative read_note, and clearly states there is no append mode, preventing incorrect usage.

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