Skip to main content
Glama

search_conduits

Locate conveyor belts and pipelines near a point or between two areas in Satisfactory. Retrieve endpoints, length, elevation, and fluid network connections from your save.

Instructions

Belt and pipe runs near a point or between two areas: ends, length, elevation.

The web map has drawn these all along; this is the text answer to "is there a pipe between those extractors and that platform, where does it run, how long is it". A run is one belt CHAIN (consecutive conveyor pieces, split at splitters, mergers and machines) or one placed pipeline piece. Longest first; each row carries both ends with what stands there where known, the drawn length, and the elevation span.

show="networks" answers the other size of question: one row per FLUID NETWORK in the whole world, what each carries, how much pipe it is, where its middle is and what it ends on. A network is one connected plumbing system, so that is the view that tells you which system a run belongs to; radius_m and to do not narrow it, and the distance column places each network relative to near.

near and to accept a coordinate in metres, me, a named factory, or one of this tool's own run ids -- chain:7, pipe:333 -- which centres on that run's midpoint, so the ids in the connects column can be followed one call at a time. With to set, only runs passing within both radii are listed. Proximity is measured against the runs' drawn lines, not their corner points, so a run crossing mid-span counts.

Long lists page with offset=, and the truncation line names the next offset -- a busy junction can carry hundreds of chains and the tail of that list is as real as its head.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toNosecond area: list only runs passing near BOTH, same forms as near
kindNoretired -- write conduit_kind= instead
nearYescentre: 'x,y' in metres, 'me', a named factory, or a run id from this tool ('chain:7', 'pipe:333')
saveNo
showNoruns | networksruns
as_ofNopin to one world state: a sav:… token from an earlier answer
limitNomax rows (hard cap 25)
worldNo
offsetNo
radius_mNo
to_radius_mNoradius around `to`, defaults to radius_m
conduit_kindNobelt | pipe | all

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
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 it does so well: it discloses ordering ('longest first'), the columns returned (both ends, drawn length, elevation span, what it ends on), that proximity is measured against drawn lines not corner points, and that lists page via offset with a truncation line naming the next offset. It omits nothing critical behaviorally, though error/auth behavior is unaddressed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded and organized into one paragraph per concern, which is good structure for a 12-parameter tool. However it carries rhetorical padding ('the tail of that list is as real as its head', 'the web map has drawn these all along') that does not help an agent invoke it, so not every sentence earns its place.

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 12-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core flow and the return shape adequately. But it never mentions `conduit_kind`, which is the central filter distinguishing belts from pipes, nor `save`/`world`, leaving real gaps an agent would have to infer.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is only 67%, but the description compensates for the key parameters: it details the accepted forms of `near`/`to` (metres coordinate, 'me', named factory, run id like 'chain:7'), explains that run ids centre on the run midpoint so `connects` ids can be followed call-by-call, and notes that `radius_m`/`to` do not narrow the networks view. It is silent on `conduit_kind`, `save`, and `world`.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource -- 'belt and pipe runs near a point or between two areas', plus a second mode ('show="networks"' returns fluid networks). An agent can tell exactly what class of object is returned. It never names a sibling tool (e.g. show_on_map, trace_upstream) to differentiate, which keeps it below a 5.

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 context for use -- it frames the tool as the text answer to 'is there a pipe between those extractors and that platform' -- and explains when each mode applies ('show="networks"' answers the other size of question). It also states the condition that selects the `to` filter. It lacks explicit when-NOT-to-use guidance and never compares to alternative tools.

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