play_delete_campaignPermanently delete a campaign by id. Removes all of its sessions, invites, and members. Caller must have campaign 'delete' permission (typically the owning DM). Destructive. Confirm with the user first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Mongo `_id` of the campaign. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | ||
| deleted | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description adds crucial context beyond that: the operation is permanent, cascades to sessions/invites/members, requires specific permissions, and mandates user confirmation. This is exactly the behavioral disclosure an agent needs for a destructive call.
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?
Three short sentences, each earning its place: core action, cascade consequences, then permission and safety guidance. Front-loaded with the verb-resource pair and no wasted words.
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 one-parameter destructive operation with an output schema, the description covers what gets destroyed, the permission prerequisite, and the confirmation requirement. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.
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 coverage is 100% with the single parameter id already documented as 'Mongo _id of the campaign.' The description adds no new meaning about the parameter itself, and the baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the full weight.
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?
The description opens with 'Permanently delete a campaign by id', using a specific verb and resource, and clearly distinguishes this from sibling delete tools for sessions, characters, pages, and moves. The cascade effect ('Removes all of its sessions, invites, and members') further defines the scope unambiguously.
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?
The description provides actionable when-to-use context: the caller must hold campaign 'delete' permission (typically the owning DM), and the agent is instructed to confirm with the user first. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the resource is unique among siblings, so no exclusion is strictly needed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.