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 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
`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

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

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so most of the behavior is structured. The description nonetheless adds real value beyond them: the leg-matching semantics, the 400-on-mismatch error, and the full caller-permission matrix (including watcher exclusion). That is more than the annotations provide, though it stops short of describing reversal or side effects.

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?

Three tightly written sentences, front-loading the action, then the tricky ruleset/leg nuance, then the permission gate. Every sentence carries distinct information with no 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?

With an output schema present and full annotation coverage, the description need not explain returns. It covers the action, the non-obvious leg-targeting behavior, the error case, and the authorization requirements, leaving nothing essential for a correct call unstated.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

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 that ruleset only confirms and never retargets. The description reinforces the ruleset semantics in prose but adds little the schema does not already say; the baseline for full coverage is 3, nudged up for the emphasis on the confirmation/mismatch behavior.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

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 spell from a campaign's allowlist.' This clearly separates it from the sibling play_add_campaign_spell and the item/rule/player removal tools, though it never names an alternative to route against.

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 clear context for invocation via the authorization rules (owner, gamemaster/player with accepted seat, watchers excluded, admin with Admin Mode). It also implies why you'd omit or supply the optional ruleset param, but offers no explicit when-not or named-alternative guidance.

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?