Retrieve named factories from a Satisfactory save, showing how much of each is still standing. Use to inventory existing production or plan expansions.
Named factories for this world, with how much of each is still standing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| save | No | ||
| as_of | No | pin to one world state: a sav:… token from an earlier answer | |
| world | 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"
+}v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full disclosure burden, yet it only adds that each entry includes a "still standing" fraction. It says nothing about save/as_of pinning semantics, world selection, or what the listing returns, leaving the mutability/safety picture unstated.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded, with no wasted words. However, the brevity comes at the cost of specification rather than being tight-but-complete.
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 three loosely documented parameters, the description is inadequate for correct invocation. It does not explain the save/as_of pinning model or defaults that determine which world state is listed.
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 coverage is only 33% (only as_of is documented as a sav: token), so the description must compensate for save and world. It mentions "this world" only obliquely, and never explains the save token or how save/world/as_of interact, so the parameter gap remains.
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 verb is implicit ("Named factories for this world") and the resource (factories) is clear, but there is no differentiation from near siblings like factory_query, factory_map, or factory_health, which plausibly also enumerate factories. The agent can infer it is a listing tool, but the scope versus those siblings is ambiguous.
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?
The description offers no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing despite many factory-related siblings. Nothing tells the agent whether this is the right entry point versus factory_query or factory_health.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.