Remove an active effect from an actor, or from ONE token via tokenId. Use effect-list first to find effect IDs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| actorId | No | Actor ID (from actor-list/actor-filter) | |
| sceneId | No | Scene of tokenId (default: active) | |
| tokenId | No | Token ID (from token-list) instead of actorId: that token's own actor (module 8.14+) | |
| effectId | Yes | Effect ID (from effect-list) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / actorId / descriptionPrevious value: -"The actor ID to remove the effect from"New value: +"Actor ID (from actor-list/actor-filter)"Input schema / properties / effectId / descriptionPrevious value: -"The effect ID to remove. Use effect-list to find IDs."New value: +"Effect ID (from effect-list)"Input schema / properties / sceneIdAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Scene of tokenId (default: active)",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / tokenIdAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Token ID (from token-list) instead of actorId: that token's own actor (module 8.14+)",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "actorId",
- "effectId"
-]New value: +[
+ "effectId"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful constraint that tokenId affects only ONE token's own actor, but says nothing about permanence, permissions, or side effects beyond what the annotations imply.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with zero filler; the destructive action and the necessary lookup step are both front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive tool with full annotation coverage, no output schema, and a fully documented schema, the description covers what to delete and how to discover the ID. It could note whether the deletion is permanent, but nothing required to invoke correctly is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the effectId source (effect-list) and the single-token scope of tokenId, adding marginal value over the schema baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource ('Remove an active effect') and clarifies the two targeting modes (actor vs a single token via tokenId). It is not the name restated, but it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from the adjacent effect-update or effect-toggle-status siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
'Use effect-list first to find effect IDs' gives a clear prerequisite workflow for the required effectId. It stops short of stating when to prefer this over effect-toggle-status or effect-update.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.