Embers: Tabletop RPG Toolkit

Remove a rule from a campaign's allowlist

play_remove_campaign_rule

DestructiveIdempotent

Remove a vault rule from a campaign's allowlist. Removal targets the leg matching the RULE'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
`ruleId`	Yes	Vault document id (`ruleId`) 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

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare destructive/idempotent/write, but the description adds material context beyond them: the authorization model (owner, GM, accepted-seat player, admin with Admin Mode, watchers excluded), the leg-targeting rule, and the 400 error on ruleset mismatch. This is rich behavioral disclosure not derivable from the annotations.

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 dense sentences, all front-loaded on the core action before targeting and permission details. The ruleset sentence duplicates the schema, costing a little conciseness, but nothing is filler.

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?

Given a mutation tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies everything else an agent needs: authorization, targeting semantics, and error behavior. Nothing material 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%, so the schema already documents ruleset's confirmation-only behavior almost verbatim; the description largely restates it. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries parameter meaning, with only marginal added framing.

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 rule from a campaign's allowlist'), which cleanly distinguishes it from sibling mutation tools like play_add_campaign_rule and from vault_delete_rule (which removes the rule itself, not its allowlist membership). An agent can tell what it does 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 prerequisites (caller must be owner/GM/accepted-seat player/admin with Admin Mode) and conditional param guidance ('Omit unless you want the placement double-checked'), which is strong usage context. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as vault_delete_rule or play_remove_campaign_item, so it stops short of full when/when-not routing.

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?