Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Cavalera Forge MCP

Cavalera Forge MCP

by jbillochon
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

List minerals

list_minerals
Read-onlyIdempotent

Lists minerals with location counts, systems, and crafting ingredient status to answer Star Citizen mining, crafting, and trading questions.

Instructions

All minerals with their number of locations, systems, and whether they are crafting ingredients.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_minerals"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful return-content context (per-mineral counts and a crafting flag), but says nothing about result size, pagination, or ordering — relevant for an open-world bulk list.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single compact sentence with the resource front-loaded and no filler. It loses a point for being a sentence fragment that omits the action verb, which makes the opening slightly less crisp than it could be.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description must carry the return-shape burden, and it does list the fields returned. However, for an open-world list of unknown size it omits ordering, pagination, and how the counts relate to the mining_locations tool, leaving real gaps for an agent deciding between them.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. Nothing in the description contradicts or confuses the empty argument object.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names the resource (minerals) and the attributes returned (location count, system count, crafting-ingredient flag), so the gist is recoverable. But it is a noun phrase with no verb, and it never distinguishes this listing from mineral_info or mining_locations, which an agent must infer from sibling names alone.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no statement of when to call this versus mineral_info (detail lookup) or mining_locations (where to mine). The only implicit signal is that this returns a bulk list with counts, which the agent must deduce unaided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools