Skip to main content
Glama
lukszi

SatisfactoryMCP

by lukszi
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

rank_build_sites

Rank candidate fields for a new extraction site best first by scoring untapped reachable capacity against spread, distance to existing buildings, and purity mix.

Instructions

Rank candidate fields for a new extraction site, best first.

Scores untapped REACHABLE capacity against spread, distance to your existing buildings, and purity mix. Every raw component is shown so you can re-weight: the single score is a starting point, not a verdict.

sources narrows the search area using the same selectors as search_resource_nodes; omit it to search the whole map.

A ranking does not page: the rows below the cut score worse by construction, so raise limit or narrow sources rather than looking for an offset.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
topNodeprecated alias for limit
saveNo
as_ofNopin to one world state: a sav:… token from an earlier answer
limitNomax rows (hard cap 25)
worldNo
sourcesNo
resourceYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed6 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 / limit
      Added value: +{
+  "default": 5,
+  "description": "max rows (hard cap 25)",
+  "maximum": 25,
+  "minimum": 1,
+  "title": "Limit",
+  "type": "integer"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / top / anyOf
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "type": "integer"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]
    • changedInput schema / properties / top / default
      Previous value: -5New value: +null
    • addedInput schema / properties / top / description
      Added value: +"deprecated alias for limit"
    • removedInput schema / properties / top / type
      Removed value: -"integer"
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
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 does meaningful work: it discloses the scoring inputs (reachable capacity, spread, distance to existing buildings, purity mix), that components are exposed for re-weighting, and that the result set is non-pageable by construction. It does not discuss permissions or whether it is purely read-only, but the ranking framing makes the operation's nature clear.

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 purpose and scoring method, then usage and paging caveats in short paragraphs. Slightly padded by the double-backtick formatting and a couple of stylistic asides, but every sentence carries information.

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?

For a 7-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers ranking semantics and the non-paging contract well but omits the meaning of the required `resource` param and the `save`/`world`/`as_of` world-state controls, leaving gaps an agent must guess at.

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 coverage is only 43% across 7 params, so the description must compensate. It adds real meaning for `sources` (same selectors as search_resource_nodes; omit to search whole map) and `limit` (raise rather than offset), but leaves `resource`, `save`, `world`, and `as_of` unexplained beyond sparse schema text.

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 candidate fields for a new extraction site') and immediately differentiates from siblings by referencing search_resource_nodes selectors and contrasting with paging behavior. An agent can distinguish it from factory_sites, site_plan, or search_resource_nodes without opening a schema.

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 clear usage context: omit `sources` to search the whole map, reuse search_resource_nodes selectors, and raise `limit` rather than seeking an offset. It stops short of naming when NOT to use it versus close siblings like site_plan or factory_sites, so no explicit exclusion guidance.

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