Skip to main content
Glama
lukszi

SatisfactoryMCP

by lukszi
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

compare_recipe_options

Compare full production routes, not single recipes, to make an item at a set rate, ranking by raw resource use, buildings, power, and byproducts.

Instructions

Rank whole ROUTES to make an item by what each actually costs.

Not a recipe list -- alternates_for_item already does that. Each route is solved end to end with the LP, so the comparison is Crude -> Alt HOR -> Diluted Fuel against Crude -> Fuel, priced in raw resource per unit, whole buildings, net power, and byproducts needing an outlet.

Input Schema

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

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field 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"
+}
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the computation mechanism ('solved end to end with the LP') and the result dimensions (raw resource per unit, whole buildings, net power, byproducts needing an outlet), but says nothing about read-only nature, permissions, or cost of invocation for a 9-parameter analysis call.

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 purpose, then the differentiation, then the mechanics. The illustrative route example earns its space by making the LP comparison concrete. Two sentences plus example, little waste.

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 appropriately explains what the comparison returns (pricing dimensions), which is a genuine plus. However, for a 9-parameter tool with 22% schema coverage and no annotations, seven undocumented parameters leave the definition materially incomplete for correct invocation.

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 22% (2 of 9 params documented in-schema), so the description must compensate and largely does not. It only loosely hints at 'outlets' via 'byproducts needing an outlet'; rate, save, world, allow_sinks, and per_resource receive no explanation in either place.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Rank whole ROUTES to make an item by what each actually costs') and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling 'alternates_for_item'. The added contrast with a naive recipe list leaves no ambiguity about what this tool computes.

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?

Gives an explicit when-not ('Not a recipe list -- alternates_for_item already does that') and routes the agent to the correct sibling for that case. It stops short of distinguishing from other planning siblings like plan_factory or propose_factories, so it is clear context without full alternatives coverage.

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