List the parts currently loaded in a running Kerbal Space Program instance, including attachment nodes and modules. Use it to inspect available parts, filter by query, or limit results.
List the actual parts loaded by the running KSP instance, including attachment nodes and modules.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| include_modules | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.9Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'List' implies a safe read, but nothing is said about pagination, result size, whether limit truncates silently, or what the query actually filters on. With three undocumented parameters 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence with no waste and the scope qualifier placed immediately after the core action. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly the source of the coverage gaps.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with three undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the agent cannot tell what limit/query do or what the returned part records contain. The description names the resource but leaves invocation details and return content unresolved.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
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 and largely does not. Only include_modules gets indirect support via 'including ... modules'; limit and query are left completely unexplained in both schema and description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource ('List the actual parts loaded by the running KSP instance') and clarifies scope by noting attachment nodes and modules are included. It distinguishes itself from the many editor/flight mutation siblings by being a read of the live runtime part set, though it never explicitly names a contrasting tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No indication of when to call this versus alternatives such as ksp_flight_state, ksp_realtime_state, or the editor part tools. The 'running KSP instance' phrasing implies a live-flight context but no requirement, prerequisite, or exclusion is stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.