Skip to main content
Glama
lukszi

SatisfactoryMCP

by lukszi
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

list_plans

List saved factory plans for a Satisfactory world, with versions and whether the world changed since saving. Name one plan to print its stored request and siting without solving.

Instructions

Plans saved for this world, their versions, and whether the world has moved under them.

name prints one plan in full instead: the arguments as they were stored, what its source selectors resolved to when saved, and its whole siting. Nothing is solved, so this answers "what did I ask for" -- plan_factory plan=<name> answers the other question, what those arguments resolve to today, and pays an LP solve for it.

Every plan carries a version (v14). Pass it as base_rev to any tool that changes the plan; plan_log lists the versions and undoes them.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoone plan's full stored request, siting and field, unsolved
saveNo
as_ofNopin to one world state: a sav:… token from an earlier answer
worldNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields 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"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / name
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "one plan's full stored request, siting and field, unsolved",
+  "title": "Name"
+}
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses important behavioral traits: nothing is solved, the output shows stored arguments and saved siting rather than current resolution, and plan versions are exposed via `base_rev`. It does not explicitly state read-only safety, auth needs, or pagination behavior, so it is strong but not complete.

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 list behavior, then the `name` mode, then version semantics. Each paragraph earns its place, though some cross-tool guidance about `base_rev` and `plan_log` is slightly ancillary for a list tool.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must carry more context. It explains the main return semantics and the `name` mode well, but leaves `save` and `world` params, output ordering/shape, and read-only safety unaddressed. Adequate but with clear gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 50%. The description adds meaning for `name` and indirectly for `as_of` by discussing world-state pinning and versions, but `save` and `world` are left undocumented in both schema and description. The added value is real but incomplete against the low coverage.

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 description states a specific resource and scope: saved plans for this world, their versions, and whether the world has moved under them. It also distinguishes the `name` mode as returning one plan's stored request rather than resolving it, and contrasts the tool with `plan_factory`. An agent can tell this apart from siblings without opening the schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It explicitly names alternatives and conditions: use this to answer "what did I ask for" without spending an LP solve, use `plan_factory plan=<name>` for current resolution, and use `plan_log` for version history and undo. The `name` parameter's behavior is also tied to a clear usage condition.

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