SatisfactoryMCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

commission_plan

Compute the startup order to energise a built factory block by block without tripping the grid fuse, keeping every step within available power headroom.

Instructions

In what order to switch a built plant on, without blowing the fuse.

This is a STARTUP order, not a build order, and the difference removes most of the problem. Building costs materials, not power -- a machine draws only when it runs -- so the whole plant can be constructed at leisure, drawing nothing, and then energised block by block. Nothing here tells you what to build first.

The constraint is one line, and it is hard: at every step, energised consumer draw must stay under the headroom plus generation from generators already burning fuel. Exceeding it in Satisfactory does not degrade gracefully -- the fuse blows and the whole grid stops until it is reset by hand, including the plant that was feeding it.

Generators are free to energise (0 MW draw, read from the dump), so a wave costs its consumers and refunds its generators, and that refund pays for the next wave.

Takes plan_factory's arguments, or recall a saved plan with plan=.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`plan`	No	recall a saved plan by name
`save`	No
`as_of`	No	pin to one world state: a sav:… token from an earlier answer
`limit`	No	max rows (hard cap 25)
`world`	No
`clocks`	No
`offset`	No
`sloops`	No
`exports`	No
`sources`	No
`objective`	No		max_mw
`allow_sinks`	No
`headroom_mw`	No	grid power free for startup; default reads it from the save
`target_item`	No
`only_recipes`	No
`exclude_recipes`	No
`export_minimums`	No
`machine_cost_mw`	No
`only_free_nodes`	No
`extractor_clocks`	No
`water_extractors`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedSep 27, 2026

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"
+}

changedInput schema / properties / limit / default
```
Previous value: -60New value: +25
```

addedInput schema / properties / offset

Added value: +{
+  "default": 0,
+  "title": "Offset",
+  "type": "integer"
+}

First observedv0.1.0Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and provides strong behavioral context: the hard power constraint, the consequence of exceeding it (fuse blows and grid shuts down until manually reset), and the fact that generators are free to energise and refund power for later waves. It does not, however, disclose side effects of the save parameter, authentication needs, or return behavior.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and then unfolds the startup constraint and generator behavior in a logical sequence. It is somewhat long but the domain context is relevant, and no sentence feels purely redundant for such a specialised planning tool.

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 a complex 21-parameter tool with low schema description coverage and no output schema, the description does not provide enough invocation detail. It explains the conceptual model well but leaves most arguments and the expected return shape undocumented.

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?

The schema has 21 parameters with only 19% description coverage, and the description adds little: it mentions only plan= and that the tool takes plan_factory's arguments. Parameters such as save, world, clocks, objective, allow_sinks, headroom_mw, machine_cost_mw, and many recipe filters are not explained in the description.

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 opening line states a specific action and resource: determining the startup switch-on order for a built plant. It explicitly contrasts this with a build order and notes that it does not say what to build first, so an agent can distinguish it from planning tools like plan_factory.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description gives clear context for when to use it: after construction, for startup energisation, not for deciding what to build. It also points to plan_factory arguments and the plan= recall option, but it does not explicitly exclude or compare against other sibling tools such as site_plan or plan_layout.

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

commission_plan

Instructions

Input Schema

Schema Changelog

TDQS

Other Tools