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

kerbal-space-program-mcp

by ziksjksk
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

ksp_flight_activate_part

Trigger a part event or action during Kerbal Space Program flight by specifying an MCP part ID or vessel flight ID.

Instructions

Trigger a part event/action by MCP part id or vessel flight id.

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_flight_activate_part"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
eventNo
part_idNo
flight_idNo

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 behavioral burden. It implies a mutating action ('Trigger') but does not disclose side effects, reversibility, required permissions, or what happens if both identifiers are given or omitted; this is a significant gap for an action tool.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the information it conveys, even though that information is thin.

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 coverage, the description is too sparse for a 3-parameter action tool. It omits parameter meaning, behavioral effects, and return expectations, leaving the agent with major unknowns before calling it.

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 names part_id and flight_id as alternative identifiers, but it completely omits the 'event' parameter and does not explain valid values, precedence between the two ids, or required/optional status.

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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Trigger') and names the resource ('part event/action'), plus the identifiers it accepts ('MCP part id or vessel flight id'). It is clear what the tool does in general terms, though it does not distinguish itself from siblings like ksp_flight_stage or ksp_flight_set_controls.

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?

The description contains no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of required game/flight state. It only states the mechanism, leaving the agent to infer usage context entirely.

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