Skip to main content
Glama

Embers: Tabletop RPG Toolkit

Level up a 5e24 player character

vault_level_up_pc

Advance a 5e24 character one level in a class, in one call, from a flat draft of choices. A class-less character (no Class entries) is rejected — record its existing classes with vault_record_pc_classes first. Vault validates every pick against the plan's pools (prerequisites enforced; grown choices demand only their delta counts) and mutates the character: the class entry's stored level bumps (or a new class entry lands at level 1 with the restricted multiclass proficiency set — no saves, no equipment), the level's features snapshot onto the sheet (a subclass picked through the class's subclass-choice ability lands as its own Origin entry and cascades its features), ability-score increases bake (Constitution raises HP retroactively), HP and hit dice grow (average or the player's roll + Constitution), use-counters resize (spent uses stay spent), the combined multiclass spell-slot pool reconciles when 2+ classes contribute (Pact Magic stays separate), core.class updates to " , ...", XP floors at the new level's minimum (or your exact xp), and a level-up note records the choices. Read vault_get_levelup_options first — required: characterId, classRuleId, hitPoints. Supply abilityChoices for every feature choice the plan surfaced (the subclass pick at 3, the ASI's feat at 4+, grown invocation lists), the sub-pick maps for anything the picked options themselves carry, multiclassSkillProficiencies/multiclassToolProficiencies when entering a class, and optional exact xp. The updated character and a summary of what changed are returned. On an invalid draft vault returns the specific reason as a tool error — fix the draft and retry; if a surfaced pick genuinely cannot be satisfied, allowIncomplete: true applies the level and skips the shortfall instead.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses an unusual amount of mutation behavior beyond the annotations: class entry bumps, feature snapshots, ASI baking with retroactive HP, HP/hit-die growth, use-counter resizing, multiclass spell-slot reconciliation, core.class updates, XP flooring, and note recording. It also describes validation failure behavior, which annotations alone do not convey.

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?

The description is dense and every clause earns its place, with the main action and preconditions front-loaded. However, it is structured as one very long paragraph with many semicolon-separated outcomes, which makes parsing harder than a bulleted or sectioned layout would be.

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?

For a complex mutation tool with zero schema parameters, the description covers purpose, prerequisites, exact parameter requirements, behavioral side effects, return expectations, and failure handling. Since an output schema exists, the return-value explanation is sufficient as written, and nothing material is missing.

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

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema is empty, so the description carries the entire parameter-documentation burden, and it does so thoroughly. It names required fields (characterId, classRuleId, hitPoints), optional fields (abilityChoices, sub-pick maps, multiclassSkillProficiencies, multiclassToolProficiencies, xp), and the special allowIncomplete flag, plus what each is for.

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?

Opens with a precise verb-resource pair: 'Advance a 5e24 character one level in a class, in one call, from a flat draft of choices.' It clearly distinguishes this from related actions like vault_get_levelup_options and vault_record_pc_classes, so an agent can tell what this tool is for immediately.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly tells the agent to read vault_get_levelup_options first, warns that class-less characters are rejected, and directs the agent to vault_record_pc_classes to fix that precondition. It also explains when to use allowIncomplete, giving clear decision guidance for error recovery.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources