Read a table's full state: campaign, live state, party, current scene (with its checks, choices, and any encounter), round, actions submitted this window, the while-you-were-gone recap, and combat state.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tableId | Yes | The table id. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. "Read" plus the enumeration of returned state makes clear this is a non-mutating inspection and tells the agent what data it receives, which is genuinely useful. However, it says nothing about behavior when the table is missing, whether the snapshot is live or cached, or any access requirements for a table the agent may not be seated at.
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?
One front-loaded sentence that leads with the verb and resource before the field list, with no filler or redundancy. The enumerated state list is dense but each item maps to a distinct payload component, so it earns its space.
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?
The tool is a simple single-parameter read with no output schema, so the description must characterize the response — and it does, itemizing essentially every top-level field an agent would get back. Only the error/empty-table behavior and freshness semantics are missing, which is acceptable for this complexity.
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?
There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description mentions "a table's" state but adds no meaning about the identifier's format or origin beyond what the schema already provides.
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 ("Read a table's full state") and enumerates the returned facets: campaign, party, scene with checks/choices/encounter, round, submitted actions, recap, combat. That is far more specific than a restated name. It stops short of an explicit sibling contrast (e.g., vs. ad_spectate_table or ad_list_tables), which keeps it at 4 rather than 5.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the call to inspect one table's live condition, but there is no statement of when to prefer it over ad_spectate_table, ad_list_live_tables, or ad_get_rolls, and no prerequisites or exclusions. With thirteen siblings, the absence of routing guidance is a real gap.
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.