Skip to main content
Glama
lukszi

SatisfactoryMCP

by lukszi
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

explain_byproducts

Identify which byproducts stall a factory plan, whether they can be sunk (solids only; fluids must be consumed or packaged), and which recipes absorb them, split by unlocked status.

Instructions

Explain which byproducts stall a plan, and what can legally consume them.

Every item balance is an equality, so a byproduct with no consumer makes a plan INFEASIBLE rather than silently vanishing. This says WHICH item is stuck, whether it can be sunk (solids only -- a fluid must be consumed exactly or packaged first), and which recipes would absorb it, split into ones this world has unlocked and ones it does not.

Pass item to focus on one byproduct instead of the whole plan.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
itemNo
saveNo
as_ofNopin to one world state: a sav:… token from an earlier answer
limitNomax rows (hard cap 25)
worldNo
exportsNo
sourcesNo
objectiveNomax_mw
allow_sinksNo
target_itemNo
exclude_recipesNo
export_minimumsNo

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

B3.3/5.0
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 delivers unusual depth: it explains that every item balance is an equality, that an unconsumeable byproduct makes the plan INFEASIBLE rather than being ignored, and that sinks apply to solids only since fluids must be consumed or packaged. It omits return format, pagination, and auth/cost behavior, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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-loads the core purpose, then explains the domain mechanics and the `item` scoping option in three compact paragraphs. Every sentence adds meaning with little filler, though the middle paragraph is dense.

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 12-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 17% schema coverage, the description explains the domain semantics well but leaves the bulk of the parameters undocumented and never describes the response shape. An agent knows why to call it but not how to configure most of its inputs.

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 coverage is only 17% of 12 parameters, so the description must compensate, yet it only clarifies the `item` parameter. The other ten parameters (save, world, exports, sources, objective, allow_sinks, target_item, exclude_recipes, export_minimums) are left with bare titles and no semantic explanation in either schema or description.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Explain which byproducts stall a plan, and what can legally consume them') and describes the exact output focus (which item is stuck, sinkability, absorbing recipes). It does not name or contrast any sibling tool, but the purpose is distinctive enough to distinguish it from the surrounding factory/plan tools.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

It states the scoping option ('Pass item to focus on one byproduct instead of the whole plan') and implicitly the use case (diagnosing infeasibility). However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no comparison to alternatives such as factory_health or trace_upstream.

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