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

kerbal-space-program-mcp

by ziksjksk
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

ksp_editor_set_action_group

Assign a part action to a stock KSP action group like SAS, RCS, Abort, Custom01, or None for editor setup.

Instructions

Assign a part action to a stock KSP action group such as SAS, RCS, Abort, Custom01, or None.

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>",
      "action": "<action>",
      "group": "<group>"
    },
    "name": "ksp_editor_set_action_group"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes
groupYes
actionYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.4.9

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
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. It doesn't disclose whether this requires editor mode, what happens if the part or group is invalid, whether it overwrites existing assignments, or any permission/auth requirements. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and provides examples without waste.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage for 3 required parameters, the description is incomplete. It should explain prerequisites (e.g., editor mode), parameter semantics, and side effects, but it only names the action groups.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only implies that 'group' takes one of the listed values but doesn't document the 'id' or 'action' parameters, their formats, or valid ranges. The description adds some meaning for 'group' but leaves the other two parameters completely undocumented.

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?

Clear verb (assign) and resource (a part action to a stock KSP action group) with concrete examples (SAS, RCS, Abort, Custom01, None). Distinguishable from siblings like ksp_editor_update_part, though the description doesn't explicitly differentiate.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ksp_editor_update_part or ksp_editor_set_stage. The description only states what the tool does, with no context or conditions for use.

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