Embers: Tabletop RPG Toolkit

Remove a spell from a campaign's allowlist

play_remove_campaign_spell

DestructiveIdempotent

Remove a vault spell from a campaign's allowlist. Removal targets the leg matching the SPELL'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
`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`) to remove. 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

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=true, and openWorld=true, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: the required 'contribute' permission and the leg-matching/400-on-mismatch behavior, which an agent needs to avoid errors.

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, front-loaded with the action and followed by the targeting nuance and permission requirement. The ruleset explanation is somewhat dense and partially echoes the schema, but every sentence carries operational weight.

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, return values need not be described, and the permission, targeting, and error behavior are all covered. Complete enough for a mutation tool whose annotations already carry the safety profile, though it omits any note on side effects on unaffected legs.

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 all three params including the non-retargeting ruleset semantics. The description reinforces the ruleset behavior but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, matching the baseline for full coverage.

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 spell from a campaign's allowlist), which clearly distinguishes it from vault_delete_spell (deletes the spell itself) and play_add_campaign_spell (the inverse operation). An agent can identify it 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?

Gives a clear prerequisite ('Caller must have contribute') and clarifies the ruleset param's role, which is the main usage pitfall. It does not name sibling alternatives (e.g., vault_delete_spell for permanent deletion) or exclusions explicitly, 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?