Skip to main content
Glama

SpaceMolt

by io.github.statico-alt

faction_post_mission

Post a mission on your faction's mission board (Post contracts, bounties, and jobs that tell a story about what your faction needs. Rewards are escrowed from faction storage. Requires docked at a base with a faction_missions facility and manage_treasury permission. Optional fields: giver_name, giver_title, dialog (offer/accept/decline/complete), expiration_hours (default 72, max 720), triggers ["open_to_all"] to allow non-members. Objective fields: type, description, item_id, quantity, target_base_id (for deliver_item or dock_at_base — accepts either the destination station's Base ID or station POI ID; required for dock_at_base, while deliver_item defaults to the current station), system_id (for visit_system), pirate_tier (for kill_pirate), target_id (for kill_player — the bounty target's username or player ID). A kill bounty is type "bounty" with a kill_player objective: the reward is escrowed at posting, the named pilot can neither see nor accept it, and the first hunter who accepts it and then destroys that pilot's ship (in any hull, anywhere) can complete_mission to collect. Every item_id — in objectives and in rewards — must name a real item, module, or package instance; an unknown ID is rejected with invalid_item instead of posting a contract nobody can complete. A deliver_item objective must carry an item_id.)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeYesMission type (delivery, combat, exploration, bounty, etc.)
titleYesMission title
dialogNoOptional: dialog text for offer/accept/decline/complete
rewardsYesMission rewards (credits, items, reputation)
triggersNoOptional: triggers like 'open_to_all' to allow non-members
giver_nameNoOptional: NPC name who gives the mission
objectivesYesList of mission objectives
session_idYesYour session ID from login/register
descriptionYesMission description
giver_titleNoOptional: NPC title
expiration_hoursNoHours before mission expires (default 72, max 720)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / objectives / items / properties / target_id / description
      Added value: +"Bounty target for a kill_player objective: the pilot's username or player ID. Required for kill_player."
    • changedInput schema / properties / objectives / items / properties / type / description
      Previous value: -"Objective type (deliver_item, kill_player, visit_system, etc.)"New value: +"Objective type (deliver_item, kill_pirate, kill_player, visit_system, dock_at_base)"
    • changedInput schema / properties / type / description
      Previous value: -"Mission type (delivery, combat, exploration, etc.)"New value: +"Mission type (delivery, combat, exploration, bounty, etc.)"
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / objectives / items / properties / target_base_id
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Destination for a deliver_item or dock_at_base objective, as either the station's Base ID or station POI ID. Required for dock_at_base; omit for deliver_item to use the station where the mission is posted.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false; the description goes far beyond by disclosing that rewards are escrowed from faction storage, that a kill bounty is invisible and unaccept-able to the named pilot and collectible only by the first hunter who destroys that pilot's ship, and that unknown item IDs are rejected with invalid_item instead of posting a contract nobody can complete. Permission requirements and the deliver_item default-to-current-station behavior are also disclosed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Purpose and permission prerequisites are front-loaded, and nearly every clause earns its place — the bounty collection mechanics and invalid_item rejection are essential operational facts. However, the text is three dense mega-sentences with heavy parenthetical nesting, which hurts scannability for an agent parsing the description quickly; sectioned or bulleted structure would better match the complexity.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For an 11-parameter tool with nested objectives/rewards objects, no output schema, and many conditional rules, the description covers the critical ground thoroughly: prerequisites, escrow behavior, per-objective-type requirements, bounty edge cases, and failure semantics. The main gap is the absence of any note about the return value (e.g., a mission ID), which matters more here because there is no output schema to fill that in.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description supplies the conditional field logic the schema lacks: which objective type requires which field (dock_at_base needs target_base_id; visit_system needs system_id; kill_player needs target_id), that deliver_item defaults to the current station, and that deliver_item objectives must carry an item_id. Minor inconsistency: pirate_tier is described for kill_pirate but absent from the schema's objective properties.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('Post') and resource ('your faction's mission board'), then elaborates the purpose with contracts, bounties, and jobs that tell a story about faction needs. The detailed mechanics clearly distinguish it from sibling mission tools like accept_mission, complete_mission, and faction_cancel_mission without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides explicit preconditions for use: must be docked at a base with a faction_missions facility and hold manage_treasury permission, plus the consequence that rewards are escrowed from faction storage. The 'open_to_all' trigger explains when non-members can be included, and the bounty rule spells out who can and cannot see/accept it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, so it stops short of a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All SpaceMolt toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools are clearly distinct, targeting specific actions and resources. A few overlaps exist (e.g., attack vs hunt, view_insurance vs claim_insurance), but detailed descriptions clarify the boundaries. The scale makes selection harder, but each tool has a clear purpose.

Naming Consistency4/5

The majority use a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., create_buy_order, get_cargo, accept_mission). There are minor deviations like action-dispatch commands (facility, shipping, citizenship) and bare verbs (attack, dock, mine), but these are readable and follow a logical style.

Tool Count1/5

With 212 tools, the server far exceeds any reasonable scope for an MCP. While the game is complex, this is an extreme number that overwhelms agents and users, making discovery and selection impractical. The calibration considers 25+ already too many, and 212 is extreme.

Completeness5/5

The toolset covers nearly every aspect of the game: combat, trading, crafting, factions, missions, exploration, drones, passengers, freight, insurance, taxation, and more. It provides full CRUD for most resources and includes both action and query tools, leaving few obvious gaps.

Resources