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

kerbal-space-program-mcp

by ziksjksk
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

ksp_game_list_saves

List available Kerbal Space Program save folders that can be loaded through the bridge. Read-only and requires no visual interface.

Instructions

List real KSP save folders that can be loaded through the bridge; this is read-only and needs no visual UI.

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_game_list_saves"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.4.9

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does add real behavioral context: 'read-only' and 'needs no visual UI' tell the agent this is a safe, headless query. However, it says nothing about the return shape (folder names? paths? metadata?) or whether results can be stale, which matters for a discovery tool with no output schema.

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 padding; the resource, scope, and safety profile all appear in one pass and every clause earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple zero-parameter list tool the description is broadly adequate, but with no output schema and no annotations, it should say what the listed saves look like or how they map to load arguments. The safety note is a plus, yet the return-value gap leaves the agent inferring the output format.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case per the rubric; there are no parameter semantics to clarify and the description does not introduce confusion about inputs.

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 (List) and resource (real KSP save folders) with a scoping qualifier ('that can be loaded through the bridge') that distinguishes it from generic folder listing. It does not explicitly name the sibling ksp_game_load_save it feeds into, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

The phrase 'that can be loaded through the bridge' implies this is a discovery step before ksp_game_load_save, but the description never states when to use this versus the alternative or any prerequisite ordering. Usage is only implied.

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