add_campaign_to_guildAdd a campaign to a guild. Any active member of the guild can do this; the calling user must be the campaign's GM (enforced server-side).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| guildId | Yes | Guild ID. | |
| campaignId | Yes | Campaign ID to add to the guild. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| guildId | Yes | ||
| success | Yes | ||
| campaignId | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses authorization requirements (active membership and GM status enforced server-side), going beyond the annotations. It provides useful behavioral context without contradicting the settings.
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?
The description is exactly two sentences long, front-loaded with the action, and the second sentence adds necessary constraint information 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?
With a simple tool, full parameter documentation, and an output schema available, the description covers the essential purpose and usage constraints. No additional behavioral details are needed.
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?
The schema fully describes both parameters ('Guild ID' and 'Campaign ID to add to the guild'), so the description adds no parameter-specific meaning. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.
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 clearly states the action: 'Add a campaign to a guild' with a specific verb and resource. It is unambiguous and easily distinguished from sibling tools like add_co_gm or add_guild_calendar_event.
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?
It provides clear guidance on who can use the tool: any active guild member, with the calling user required to be the campaign's GM. This gives context for use, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose. The mnemon tools are separated by type (NPC, Location, Quest, etc.), and other domains like guild, forum, and friend management are also well-segmented. No two tools appear to do the same thing.
Most tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case. Some minor deviations: 'describe_mnemon_types' instead of 'list_mnemon_types', and 'invite_user_by_email' has a slightly different structure. Overall quite consistent.
With 63 tools, the server is quite heavy. While each tool serves a specific purpose for campaign management, the sheer number may be overwhelming. It is borderline but still reasonable given the broad domain coverage.
The tool set covers CRUD for most resources (campaigns, sessions, mnemon types, guilds, friends, forum). Notable gaps: no delete_campaign or delete_session, and update_campaign is limited. However, the core workflows are well-covered.