world_recallReturns a Plot Speaks campaign's state (day, place, party with hit points, spell slots and gear, people met, quests, the story so far) by play id, or by the three-word resume code the players were given.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | The campaign's slug | |
| play_id | No | The play id, when you have it | |
| resume_code | No | The three-word resume code the players say |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context by detailing what the returned state contains (HP, spell slots, quests, etc.), which is useful behavioral information beyond annotations. It doesn't cover error conditions or precedence between lookup methods.
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?
A single well-structured sentence: it front-loads the core purpose and then elaborates with a compact, comma-separated list of state components. Every part earns its place without redundancy.
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 read-only tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains the return contents. It could be improved by clarifying precedence if both play_id and resume_code are provided, but overall it provides enough for an agent to use the tool correctly.
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 parameters are documented in the schema. The description restates that a play id or the 'three-word' resume code can be used, but this is already present in the schema descriptions. No additional semantics are provided beyond what the schema offers.
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?
The description states a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('campaign's state'), and enumerates what is included (day, place, party stats, etc.). It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like world_update or open_plot_speaks, but the purpose is clear from the text.
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?
The description implies when to use it by listing two lookup methods (play id or resume code), but gives no explicit when-not conditions or alternatives. It doesn't tell an agent when to prefer this over world_update or check_accusation.
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.