Skip to main content
Glama
lukszi

SatisfactoryMCP

by lukszi
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

alternates_for_item

List every automatable recipe for an item, alternates first, and see which are unlocked or locked by hard drive or milestone when a save is provided.

Instructions

Every automatable recipe that makes an item, alternates first.

When a save is readable, each row is marked HAVE or LOCKED, and a LOCKED one says which schematic would grant it -- a hard drive and a milestone are different work.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
itemYes
saveNo
as_ofNopin to one world state: a sav:… token from an earlier answer
worldNo
include_lockedNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / as_of
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "pin to one world state: a sav:… token from an earlier answer",
+  "title": "As Of"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / world
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "World"
+}
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose useful output behavior: rows are marked HAVE or LOCKED and LOCKED rows name the granting schematic, with hard-drive vs milestone distinguished. It does not say whether 'save' is required for LOCKED data, what happens when no save is provided, or how 'world' interacts with 'save'.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler, and the core behavior (alternates first) is front-loaded. The second sentence is somewhat clipped but earns its place by explaining the HAVE/LOCKED output.

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?

For a 5-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the return semantics well but leaves 'world', the relationship between 'world' and 'save', and the acceptable format for 'save' unaddressed. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 coverage is only 20% (only 'as_of' is documented), so the description must compensate. It partially does: 'item' is the thing produced, 'save' governs HAVE/LOCKED marking, and 'include_locked' is implied by LOCKED rows. The 'world' parameter is never explained, leaving a real gap.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description states a specific resource and scope: 'every automatable recipe that makes an item, alternates first.' An agent can infer it returns recipe options for a given item, distinct from recipe_detail or search_recipes. It lacks a crisp verb and never names the sibling it is differentiated from, so it stops short of 5.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not, or alternative is stated. The description never mentions compare_recipe_options, recipe_detail, or search_recipes, so the agent must guess which sibling to call for a recipe-listing need. Only implicit context ('alternates first') hints at use.

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