Embers: Tabletop RPG Toolkit

Add a spell to a campaign's allowlist

play_add_campaign_spell

Add a vault spell to a campaign's allowlist. The spell always lands on the leg matching the SPELL's own ruleset — the campaign must have a leg for that ruleset or play answers 400. The optional ruleset param never retargets; it only confirms the expected leg, and a mismatch answers 400. Caller must have 'contribute' on the campaign.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ruleset`	No	Optional confirmation of the target leg's ruleset. The entity always lands on the leg matching its OWN ruleset — this param never retargets; when present, play verifies it matches that leg and answers 400 on a mismatch. Omit unless you want the placement double-checked.
`spellId`	Yes	Vault document id (`spellId`). Required.
`campaignId`	Yes	Campaign id.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedSep 27, 2026

removedInput schema / properties / ruleset / enum

Removed value: -[
-  "5th Edition",
-  "5e24",
-  "PFRPG",
-  "PFRPG2",
-  "PF Playtest",
-  "Savage Worlds",
-  "Savage Embers",
-  "Solarian Conflict",
-  "Embers RPG",
-  "Universal",
-  "Fate Core",
-  "Fate Accelerated"
-]

addedInput schema / properties / ruleset / minLength
```
Added value: +1
```

First observedSep 21, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations (which only declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, openWorld=true), the description adds the leg-placement rule, the two 400 failure conditions, and the required 'contribute' permission. It does not address what happens on a duplicate add (relevant given idempotentHint=false), leaving a modest gap.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place, with the core action front-loaded and the constraints on ruleset and permissions following in priority order. No filler.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, an output schema present, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies the remaining behavioral essentials (placement rule, error triggers, permission). Only the duplicate-add / non-idempotent behavior is left unstated.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all three params are already documented. The description's explanation of the optional `ruleset` param as confirm-only largely restates the schema text rather than adding new syntax or format detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource ('Add a vault spell to a campaign's allowlist'), which is clearly distinct from the sibling play_remove_campaign_spell and play_list_campaign_spells. An agent can identify the operation without consulting 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?

Gives concrete operational conditions: the spell lands on the leg matching its own ruleset, the campaign must have that leg or play answers 400, and the caller needs 'contribute'. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like play_add_campaign_item or state when-not to use it, so it falls 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 Embers: Tabletop RPG Toolkit tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?