Skip to main content
Glama
lukszi

SatisfactoryMCP

by lukszi
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

search_recipes

Find Satisfactory recipes by name or by what they consume or produce, with HAVE/LOCKED status shown, to plan factories from your save.

Instructions

Search recipes by name, or by what they consume/produce. Marks HAVE/LOCKED.

consumes="Rubber" is the reverse lookup: every recipe that eats an item. recipe_kind is "part" (default), "building" (build-gun costs), "manual" or "all" -- and the header counts EVERY kind over the whole recipe table whatever it is set to, so a part-only view still says how many buildings eat the item.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
kindNoretired -- write recipe_kind= instead
saveNo
as_ofNopin to one world state: a sav:… token from an earlier answer
limitNomax rows (hard cap 25)
queryNo
worldNo
offsetNo
consumesNo
producesNo
recipe_kindNopart | building | manual | allpart
include_eventsNo
only_alternatesNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed7 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 / kind / anyOf
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]
    • changedInput schema / properties / kind / default
      Previous value: -"part"New value: +null
    • addedInput schema / properties / kind / description
      Added value: +"retired -- write recipe_kind= instead"
    • removedInput schema / properties / kind / type
      Removed value: -"string"
    • addedInput schema / properties / recipe_kind
      Added value: +{
+  "default": "part",
+  "description": "part | building | manual | all",
+  "title": "Recipe Kind",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / world
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "World"
+}
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
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 add real behavioral context: that results are marked HAVE/LOCKED and that header counts aggregate EVERY recipe kind regardless of the recipe_kind filter. It still omits return shape and pagination behavior, but the non-obvious counting quirk is exactly the kind of disclosure that matters.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Front-loaded purpose statement followed by two tightly scoped clarifications with inline code examples. No filler sentences and nothing buried.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

A 12-parameter tool with 33% schema coverage, no annotations and no output schema needs substantially more than this. Undocumented booleans like include_events and only_alternates, plus save/world/as_of scoping and pagination via limit/offset, are left entirely to inference.

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 33%, so the description must compensate and it partly does — clarifying consumes/produces semantics that the bare schema does not. But query, save, world, as_of, include_events, only_alternates, limit and offset get no explanation beyond their name/default, leaving a significant gap.

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+resource (search recipes) and two distinct search modes: by name and by consume/produce relationships. It clearly is not search_items or recipe_detail, though it never names those siblings to sharpen the boundary.

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?

It explains one usage nuance well — that ``consumes="Rubber"`` is the reverse lookup for recipes that eat an item — and describes recipe_kind values. However it gives no guidance on when to use query vs consumes/produces, or when to prefer recipe_detail over a search.

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