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 have 'contribute'.

Input Schema

TableJSON 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

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

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: the removal always targets the leg matching the item's own ruleset, the `ruleset` param never retargets and yields a 400 on mismatch, and the caller needs 'contribute'. Destructive/idempotent hints are already covered by annotations, and the description leaves unstated what happens if the item is not on the allowlist.

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?

Three tight sentences that front-load the action, then the non-obvious targeting rule, then the auth requirement. Dense but every clause carries information; only minor redundancy with the schema on the ruleset point.

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 an output schema present, rich annotations, and full schema descriptions, the description only needs to supply behavioral nuance — and it covers permission requirements and the surprising ruleset-leg targeting rule. Little an agent needs is missing.

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's `ruleset` text already carries the confirmation/400 semantics, so the description largely duplicates it. Baseline 3 is appropriate; no extra syntax or format detail is added.

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 ('Remove') and resource ('a vault item from a campaign's allowlist'), which cleanly separates it from play_add_campaign_item and the spell/rule removal siblings. The scope is unambiguous 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?

Explains when to use the optional `ruleset` param ('omit unless you want the placement double-checked') and states the permission prerequisite ('Caller must have contribute'). It does not name a sibling alternative or exclusion case, 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?