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

kerbal-space-program-mcp

by ziksjksk
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

ksp_wait_for_scene

Pauses automation until Kerbal Space Program enters a requested scene, such as EDITOR or FLIGHT, with an optional timeout to limit the wait.

Instructions

Wait until KSP reaches a requested scene such as EDITOR or FLIGHT.

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": {
      "scene": "<scene>"
    },
    "name": "ksp_wait_for_scene"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sceneYes
timeoutNo

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 implies blocking behavior by saying 'wait until', but does not disclose what happens on timeout, whether the call blocks indefinitely, error conditions, or any permission/auth requirements.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It immediately states the action and the key resource, which is appropriate for such a simple tool.

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?

For a wait tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is too sparse. It does not explain valid scene values, timeout semantics, blocking behavior, or how to detect timeout versus success.

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 gives examples for the required scene parameter (EDITOR, FLIGHT) but does not enumerate valid scenes or explain the optional timeout parameter, leaving a substantial gap for both parameters.

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 states a specific verb and resource: wait until KSP reaches a requested scene, with examples EDITOR and FLIGHT. This clearly separates it from most flight-control siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast with ksp_wait_for_event, which is the nearest sibling.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives such as ksp_wait_for_event, ksp_status, or ksp_realtime_state, and no exclusions. The intended usage is only implied by the tool name and description.

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