Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
kerbal-space-program-mcp

kerbal-space-program-mcp

by ziksjksk
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

ksp_editor_save

Save the current editor craft as a real KSP .craft file. Persist your rocket design to disk so it can be reloaded, shared, or launched in Kerbal Space Program.

Instructions

Save the current editor craft as a real KSP .craft file.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "ksp_editor_save"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNo
pathNo
overwriteNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.4.9

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Save as a real .craft file' hints at a persistence distinction, but it says nothing about overwrite semantics, default path/name behavior when parameters are omitted, permissions, or failure modes — significant gaps for a write operation.

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 efficient sentence with no waste, front-loading the action and target. It is appropriately short, though brevity here borders on under-specification rather than genuine conciseness.

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 mutation/persistence tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage needs the description to compensate, and it does not — it omits default behavior, overwrite handling, and return expectations.

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?

All three parameters (name, path, overwrite) have 0% schema description coverage, and the description mentions none of them. It is especially unclear what happens when name/path are omitted, since all parameters are optional — the description adds no meaning beyond the bare schema.

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: saving the current editor craft as a real KSP .craft file. The phrase 'current editor craft' makes the operating context clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like ksp_editor_apply_craft or ksp_editor_new, but the save-to-disk framing is discernible.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No when-to-use guidance, no stated prerequisites (e.g. must be in the editor scene, must have a craft loaded). The agent must infer that this is the terminal step after building a craft, with no mention of alternatives.

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