kerbal-space-program-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

ksp_editor_attach_part

Connect an existing editor part to a parent vessel using explicit KSP attachment nodes, specifying which node on each part joins them.

Instructions

Reconnect an existing editor part to a parent using explicit KSP attachment nodes.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "id": "<id>",
      "parent_id": "<parent_id>",
      "parent_attach_node": "<parent_attach_node>",
      "attach_node": "<attach_node>"
    },
    "name": "ksp_editor_attach_part"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes
`parent_id`	Yes
`attach_node`	Yes
`snap_to_node`	No
`parent_attach_node`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.4.9Sep 13, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It implies a mutation (attaching/reconnecting a part) but does not disclose side effects, required editor scene, permissions, reversibility, or what happens if nodes are invalid. Only 'using explicit KSP attachment nodes' hints at parameter intent.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is structurally clean, though extremely terse for the tool's complexity.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema descriptions, the description leaves critical gaps: parameter meanings, prerequisites, side effects, and attachment semantics. It is not complete enough to reliably invoke.

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 coverage is 0% and 5 parameters are fully undocumented. The phrase 'explicit KSP attachment nodes' vaguely relates to attach_node and parent_attach_node, but id, parent_id, and snap_to_node are not explained, leaving required inputs ambiguous.

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 ('Reconnect') and resource ('existing editor part to a parent') and references KSP attachment nodes. It distinguishes itself from sibling add_part by specifying 'existing', though it does not explicitly route to alternatives.

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?

Usage is implied by 'existing editor part' and 'reconnect', suggesting a part already in the editor that needs reattachment. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or comparison to siblings like ksp_editor_add_part or ksp_editor_update_part.

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

Deploy Server