Embers: Tabletop RPG Toolkit

Remove an item from a campaign's allowlist

play_remove_campaign_item

DestructiveIdempotent

Remove a vault item from a campaign's allowlist. Removal targets the leg matching the ITEM's own ruleset; the optional ruleset param only confirms that leg (mismatch answers 400), never retargets. Caller must be the campaign's owner, a gamemaster or player with an accepted seat (watchers excluded), or an admin with Admin Mode on.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`itemId`	Yes	Vault document id (`itemId`) to remove. Required.
`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.
`campaignId`	Yes	Campaign id.

Output 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

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds substantial context on top: the exact authorization roles required, the 400 response on ruleset mismatch, and the non-retargeting semantics of the optional param. These are behavioral facts an agent cannot infer from the annotations alone.

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?

Two tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, followed by the targeting rule and auth gate. No filler or restatement of the name.

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

Completeness5/5

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

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and the description covers the side effect (allowlist removal), the targeting constraint, the error case, and the authorization requirement. Complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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% and the schema already explains the ruleset param's confirm-only behavior in nearly identical terms, so the description largely duplicates structured data. With full coverage the baseline of 3 is appropriate; it adds no syntax or format beyond the schema.

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 ('Remove a vault item from a campaign's allowlist') and is clearly distinguishable from sibling removers like play_remove_campaign_rule and play_remove_campaign_spell. The scope ('leg matching the item's own ruleset') sharpens what is being removed beyond a generic delete.

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 explicit preconditions for calling: caller must be owner, gamemaster, or player with an accepted seat (watchers excluded), or an admin with Admin Mode on. It also warns the optional ruleset param only confirms and never retargets. It does not name alternative tools, 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 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?