Skip to main content
Glama
lukszi

SatisfactoryMCP

by lukszi
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

bom

Compute total raw and intermediate rates per minute to produce a Satisfactory item, using linear programming to handle recipe cycles and show chosen recipes.

Instructions

Flattened bill of materials: total raw and intermediate rates for qty/min of an item.

qty is a RATE, per minute. Solved by the LP, never by expanding the recipe tree: Recycled Plastic and Recycled Rubber form a real 2-cycle, so an expansion has no correct depth limit. Every row names the recipe chosen for that item, because alternates change the totals materially.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
qtyNo
itemYes
saveNo
as_ofNopin to one world state: a sav:… token from an earlier answer
limitNomax rows (hard cap 25)
worldNo
offsetNo
outletsNo
allow_sinksNo
only_recipesNo
exclude_recipesNo

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 / offset
      Added value: +{
+  "default": 0,
+  "title": "Offset",
+  "type": "integer"
+}
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
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 it does disclose genuinely non-obvious behavior: the result is solved by an LP rather than recipe-tree expansion (because of a real 2-cycle), and each row names the recipe chosen. However it never states whether the call is read-only or has side effects, and the 'save'/'world' state behavior is left unexplained.

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?

Front-loaded with the core meaning, and the parenthetical about the recycled-material 2-cycle earns its place by justifying why an LP is used instead of tree expansion. Slightly dense but no filler sentences.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For an 11-parameter, solver-backed tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves too much unsaid: most parameters, the meaning of save/world/as_of state, and the shape of the returned rows are never covered.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is only 18% across 11 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It usefully defines qty as a rate per minute, but item, save, world, outlets, allow_sinks, offset, only_recipes and exclude_recipes get no explanation anywhere.

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 verb and resource: it produces a flattened bill of materials giving total raw and intermediate rates per qty/min of an item. That is concrete enough to distinguish it from recipe_detail or trace_upstream, though it does not name any sibling explicitly.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative. The reader can infer it is for totaling resource requirements, but nothing routes the agent between this and recipe_detail, trace_upstream, or alternates_for_item.

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