Summarize a Satisfactory world's progress, power, and problems. Optionally pin to a specific save state.
Progress, power and problems for one world.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| save | No | ||
| as_of | No | pin to one world state: a sav:… token from an earlier answer | |
| world | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / as_ofAdded value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "default": null,
+ "description": "pin to one world state: a sav:… token from an earlier answer",
+ "title": "As Of"
+}v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it largely fails. It gestures at content categories (progress, power, problems) but says nothing about read-only nature, return shape, cost, or whether results are derived or stored. A mutation-free summary is implied only by the tool name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
It is a single nine-word fragment with zero redundancy, so nothing wastes space. But it is under-specified rather than concise: there is no front-loaded statement of the action, so brevity here costs clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 3 optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description must explain both inputs and the shape of the returned summary. It does neither beyond naming topical categories, leaving the agent unable to predict what a 'summary' contains or how the three scoping inputs interact.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 33%: only 'as_of' is documented in the schema ('a sav:… token from an earlier answer'), while 'save' and 'world' are bare. The description's phrase 'for one world' loosely gestures at the 'world' parameter but adds no format, default, or interaction semantics (e.g., how save/world/as_of combine).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The fragment 'Progress, power and problems for one world' names the subject matter (progress/power/problems) and scope ('one world'), which hints at a per-world summary read. However, it has no verb and never states what the tool actually does (retrieve? compute? compare?), so an agent must infer the operation from the name alone. It is more informative than a pure tautology but still vague.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no when-to-use guidance and no alternative named. Siblings such as list_worlds, power_report, factory_query, and describe_location clearly overlap, yet the description does nothing to route the agent between them. 'For one world' implies scoping but not selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.