SatisfactoryMCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

rank_unlocks

Calculate which locked alternate recipes are worth unlocking for your current factory plan by measuring the output change each candidate would add.

Instructions

What every locked alternate recipe would be worth to THIS plan.

One counterfactual per candidate: solve the plan, solve it again with the recipe added, report the difference. It answers "which unlock should I chase" with a number in the plan's own units instead of a tier list, because a recipe's worth depends entirely on what you already have.

A zero is an answer. Most candidates change nothing, and "you are not missing anything here" is a decision -- it is otherwise reached by walking the recipe tree by hand.

Deltas are an UPPER bound: a candidate needing a machine you have not built is judged as if you had it, and the machine is named. Alternates currently offered by a pending hard drive are flagged, which is the difference between "worth having" and "claimable now".

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`plan`	No	recall a saved plan by name
`save`	No
`as_of`	No	pin to one world state: a sav:… token from an earlier answer
`limit`	No	max rows (hard cap 25)
`query`	No	only test alternates whose name matches
`world`	No
`clocks`	No
`search`	No	retired -- write query= instead
`sloops`	No
`exports`	No
`sources`	No
`objective`	No		max_mw
`allow_sinks`	No
`target_item`	No
`only_recipes`	No
`exclude_recipes`	No
`export_minimums`	No
`machine_cost_mw`	No
`only_free_nodes`	No
`extractor_clocks`	No
`water_extractors`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedSep 27, 2026

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 / query

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "only test alternates whose name matches",
+  "title": "Query"
+}

changedInput schema / properties / search / description

Previous value: -"only test alternates whose name matches"New value: +"retired -- write query= instead"

First observedv0.1.0Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries real weight and does so: it explains the counterfactual method, that zeros are meaningful answers, that deltas are an UPPER bound assuming unbuilt machines, and that pending-hard-drive alternates are flagged. It omits cost/latency given it solves the plan once per candidate over up to 25 rows, so it is not fully transparent, but the behavioral disclosure is unusually rich.

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 the core definition, then caveats that each earn their place (zero-as-answer, upper bound, hard-drive flag). Slightly essayistic in tone, but no sentence is padding.

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 21-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description explains what the deltas mean but never sketches the shape of the result (one row per candidate? what columns?) or how a plan/world is identified among the many optional arguments. Adequate for intent, incomplete for invocation.

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 description coverage is only 24% across 21 parameters, so the description is expected to compensate and does not. Terms like 'candidate' and 'plan' are used informally, but nothing explains plan, as_of, limit, query, world, or the many planning knobs (sloops, exports, objective, machine_cost_mw) — the agent is left to guess at most arguments.

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 precise verb+resource (rank unlock candidates by marginal value to a given plan) and immediately differentiates from a tier list. An agent can distinguish it from siblings like alternates_for_item or compare_recipe_options without opening any schema.

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?

The framing 'which unlock should I chase' with a plan-relative number implies the usage context, and the hard-drive flagging hints at the claimable-now case. But no sibling is named and there is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance (e.g., versus advise_hard_drive_pick or alternates_for_item), leaving the routing to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

rank_unlocks

Instructions

Input Schema

Schema Changelog

TDQS

Other Tools