helldivers2-mcp
Server Details
MCP server exposing live Helldivers 2 galactic war data.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
- Repository
- xerno42/helldivers2-mcp
- GitHub Stars
- 0
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4/5 across 7 of 7 tools scored.
Each tool addresses a distinct aspect of the game (planets, assignments, dispatches, planet details, space station, Steam news, war status) with no overlap in purpose.
All tools follow the consistent pattern 'get_<resource>' or 'get_<adjective>_<resource>', making them predictable and easy to understand.
7 tools is well-scoped for a game information server, covering all major data categories without being excessive or insufficient.
The set covers core game state (planets, war, assignments, news, space station) comprehensively; minor omissions like personal player stats or enemy details do not hinder the primary purpose.
Available Tools
7 toolsget_all_planetsGet All PlanetsAInspect
Fetch a list of all planets in the current galactic war. Returns a list of planets with their id (index), name, and sector.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries burden. It indicates a read operation ('Fetch') and specifies return fields, but lacks details on ordering, data freshness, rate limits, or whether the list is exhaustive. Basic transparency, but not comprehensive.
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 concise sentences with no extraneous information. Front-loaded with action and resource, then details on return structure.
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 list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers purpose and return fields. No gaps identified given the tool's simplicity.
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?
No parameters exist in the input schema; schema coverage is 100%. Description does not need to add param info. Baseline 4 for zero parameters 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?
Description clearly states verb 'Fetch', resource 'list of all planets in the current galactic war', and specifies returned fields (id, name, sector). Distinguishes from sibling tools like get_planet_details which likely fetch a single planet.
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?
No explicit when-to-use or alternative comparison. Usage is implied by the tool name and description, but no guidance on when not to use or when to prefer siblings like get_planet_details for specific planet info.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_assignmentsGet AssignmentsAInspect
Fetch the currently active assignments (Major Orders) issued by Super Earth high command. Returns each assignment with title, briefing, task description, decoded task list (type and value information including races, difficulties, and target planet names), current progress numbers, reward (type and amount), and expiration (seconds until expiry).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It describes return content but omits behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication requirements, or rate limits. The lack of any side-effect or permission disclosure limits transparency.
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 one sentence, front-loaded with the main purpose, and efficiently lists the returned fields. It is concise without missing critical information, though splitting into multiple sentences could improve readability.
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?
Given no parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers the tool's purpose and return details. It lists all relevant fields (title, briefing, task, progress, reward, expiration) and sets expectations for current data.
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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter info but that is unnecessary. It appropriately outlines what the tool returns, aligning with 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 clearly states the tool fetches currently active assignments (Major Orders) from Super Earth high command, listing specific return fields. This distinguishes it from sibling tools which focus on planets, dispatches, etc.
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 usage by specifying the resource (assignments) and context (currently active), but does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use it. Still, the purpose is clear and distinguishable from siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_dispatchesGet DispatchesAInspect
Fetch the latest dispatches (news feed) from Super Earth high command. Returns recent dispatches with their published date (relative time) and message text. Optional limit parameter caps how many items to return (default 20, max 50).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of dispatches to return. Default 20, max 50. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Describes a read-only operation ('Fetch', 'Returns') but lacks details on authorization, rate limits, or side effects. With no annotations, the description carries the burden but only covers the basic read behavior.
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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. Every sentence adds value without 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?
Given no output schema, the description adequately describes the return structure (published date and message text). Could optionally mention ordering or that it returns a list, but is largely complete for a simple read tool.
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?
Input schema covers the 'limit' parameter with default and max already described. The description repeats this information without adding further semantic context, so it meets the baseline for 100% schema coverage.
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?
Clearly states it fetches the latest dispatches from Super Earth high command, with specifics on what is returned (published date and message text). Distinguishes from sibling tools like get_assignments and get_war_status which serve different purposes.
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?
Implies usage for fetching news feed, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_planet_detailsGet Planet DetailsAInspect
Fetch detailed information about one or more planets by providing their planet index/indices. Requires: planetindices parameter (array of integers of planet indices, maximum of 5) Returns: For each planet - index, name, sector, biome (Biome: name, description), hazards (Hazard: name, description), position, list of waypoints (planet indices) the planet is connected to, max health, current health, initial owner, current owner, regen per second, event information if one is active (faction who initiated the event, current health, max health, start and end time), statistics (Statistics: missions won, missions lost, mission time, terminid kills, automaton kills, illuminate kills, bullets fired, bullets hit, time played, deaths, revives, friendly fire casualties, mission success rate, accuracy, player count), attacking (a list of planet indices this planet is currently attacking), regions (Region: name, description, health, max health, size, regen per second, active players).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| planetindices | Yes | A list of planet indices to get detailed information for. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the extensive return structure and parameter constraints. It does not explicitly state it is a read-only operation, but the content implies idempotent fetching.
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 quite lengthy, listing all return fields in prose. While structured, it could be more concise for quick AI parsing. However, it is front-loaded with action and parameter.
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?
With no output schema, the description provides complete documentation of the return structure, including nested objects. It covers all necessary information for invoking 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?
Schema coverage is 100% but the description adds more specific constraints (max 5 integers) and clarifies the parameter meaning beyond the schema's short description.
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 clearly states the tool fetches detailed information about planets by indices, specifying the parameter and return structure. It is distinct from sibling 'get_all_planets' which likely returns a simpler list.
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 usage when detailed planet info is needed by index, and mentions the maximum of 5 indices. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings or state when not to use, but context from sibling names helps.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_space_station_detailsGet Space Station DetailsAInspect
Fetch the current Democracy Space Station (DSS) details. Returns the planet the DSS is currently supporting (full planet details), election end (relative time until the next planet vote ends), and a list of active tactical actions (Tactical action: name, description, strategic description, status, status expire, effects (Effect: name, description), costs (Cost: item name, current value, delta per second, max donation amount)).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Given no annotations, the description bears the full burden. It thoroughly describes the output structure, including nested objects for tactical actions and costs, but does not mention behavioral traits like read-only nature or potential performance impact.
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 that front-loads the core purpose and then lists return fields efficiently. It is slightly dense but avoids unnecessary words.
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?
With no output schema, the description fully explains all return values, including nested structures for tactical actions and costs. For a simple read-only tool with no parameters, this is 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?
There are zero parameters, so per guidelines the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed since there are no inputs.
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 clearly states it fetches DSS details and enumerates the returned fields (planet, election end, tactical actions). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_planet_details and get_war_status by focusing specifically on the Democracy Space Station.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_planet_details or get_all_planets. It lacks explicit context about when the DSS information is needed or any prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_steam_newsGet Steam NewsAInspect
Fetch the latest Steam news for Helldivers 2. Returns recent items with title, URL, published date (relative time), and content. Optional limit parameter caps how many items to return (default 10, max 30).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of Steam news items to return. Default 10, max 30. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the return fields and the limit parameter, but does not mention ordering (e.g., newest first), error handling, or any potential rate limits. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it only partially fulfills it.
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 two sentences long, front-loads the purpose, and contains no redundant or extraneous information. Every sentence serves a clear function.
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?
The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema), and the description covers the key aspects: what it fetches, what it returns, and the parameter constraint. It lacks explicit mention of sorting order, but that is a minor gap given the simplicity.
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 has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'limit', and the description only restates the schema's constraints. No additional semantic value is provided beyond what the schema already offers.
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 clearly states the action ('Fetch the latest Steam news'), the specific resource ('Helldivers 2'), and the returned fields. It distinguishes itself from siblings as the only news-related tool.
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 intended use is implied (to get recent news), but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any exclusions. Since it's the only news tool, the lack of contrast is acceptable but not ideal.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_war_statusGet War StatusAInspect
Fetch the current war status and active planets. Returns aggregated war statistics (impact multiplier, total missions won, total missions lost, total mission time, total terminid kills, total automaton kills, total illuminate kills, total bullets fired, total bullets hit, total deaths, total revives, total friendly fire casualties, overall mission success rate, overall accuracy), and a list of active planets (planets with active players or ownership change) with their name, sector, initial owner, current owner, player count, active event information if any (Event: faction, current health, max health, start and end time), the planets each active planet is currently attacking (id and name), and active regions (Region: name, health, max health, regen per second, size, active players).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It describes the output but lacks info on side effects, auth, or rate limits. Operation is clearly a fetch, but no explicit read-only declaration.
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?
Front-loaded with purpose, but the list of fields is verbose and runs as a single sentence. Still, every piece adds value.
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?
Given no output schema, description thoroughly enumerates return fields, covering war statistics and active planets. Could be better structured but is 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?
No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100%. Description adds no param info, but that's acceptable given absence of parameters.
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 clearly states the tool fetches 'current war status and active planets' and lists specific return fields, making it distinct from siblings like get_all_planets and get_planet_details.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives; usage is implied by the nature of the data (aggregated war overview).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!