Groups production buildings from a Satisfactory save into clustered sites, largest first, to support factory planning and optimization.
Built production buildings clustered into sites, largest first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | ||
| offset | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / as_ofAdded value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "default": null,
+ "description": "pin to one world state: a sav:… token from an earlier answer",
+ "title": "As Of"
+}Input schema / properties / offsetAdded value: +{
+ "default": 0,
+ "title": "Offset",
+ "type": "integer"
+}v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It reveals only two traits: results are ordered largest-first and only 'built' buildings are counted. It is silent on authentication/save requirements, pagination behavior, reversibility, and what the grouping actually yields, which is thin for a five-parameter read tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
It is a single short sentence, but its brevity is under-specification rather than efficient conciseness; it conveys almost no actionable information and there is no front-loaded verb or scope. The brevity does not earn its place because it omits everything an agent needs.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no annotations, no output schema, and five parameters at 40% coverage, the description would need to explain inputs, result shape, and applicability. Instead it offers one fragment, leaving the save/world scoping and pagination contract entirely unexplained.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 40% (as_of and limit are documented; save, world, offset are not), so the description is expected to compensate and does not mention a single parameter. Nothing explains what 'save' or 'world' select or how limit/offset paginate, leaving the majority of parameters ambiguous.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description describes the returned resource ('built production buildings clustered into sites, largest first') but supplies no verb and no scope, so it reads more like a return-value summary than a statement of what the tool does. It is not clearly distinguished from close siblings such as rank_build_sites, factory_map, or list_buildings, so an agent cannot tell which of these to pick from the text alone.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (whether a save or world must be specified), and no routing to alternatives like rank_build_sites or factory_map. The only hint at behavior is the implicit 'largest first' ordering, which is not framed as selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.