Analyze rockets in the KSP editor to compute mass, thrust-to-weight, staging delta-v, and center-of-mass/thrust geometry, and flag launch risks before flight.
Analyze real KSP part modules for approximate mass, thrust-to-weight, staging delta-v, center-of-mass/thrust geometry, and launch-risk warnings.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| include_parts | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.9Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. 'Analyze' implies a read-only computation, but the description says nothing about side effects, whether it mutates the craft, cost/latency, or whether it requires a craft to be present in the editor. It adds essentially no behavioral context beyond the 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?
A single dense sentence that front-loads the verb and lists the analysis outputs with no filler. Appropriately sized, though the unqualified list slightly blurs what is actually returned.
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?
No output schema and no annotations, so the description is the only source of information. It defines the scope of the analysis well, but leaves the return shape (approximate metrics? warnings? raw parts?) and the lone parameter unexplained — adequate but with clear gaps for a tool with zero structured support.
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 description coverage is 0% and there is one parameter (include_parts) whose meaning is documented nowhere. The description never mentions the parameter, its default, or what including parts changes in the output, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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?
States a specific verb (Analyze) and enumerates the concrete analyses it performs (mass, TWR, staging delta-v, CoM/CoT geometry, launch-risk warnings), which separates it from siblings like ksp_editor_validate or ksp_parts_list. It stops short of explicitly naming which sibling to prefer, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.
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 statement of when to run this analysis versus ksp_editor_validate, ksp_editor_get_craft, or ksp_editor_launch, nor any precondition (craft loaded/edited) or exclusion. Usage is only implied by the verb.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.