create_session_summary_mnemonsCreate SessionSummary mnemons (structured summaries of game sessions). Players may not call this — GM/co-GM only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| items | Yes | ||
| campaignId | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| results | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive intent, which the description aligns with. Beyond annotations, it discloses an access control requirement (GM/co-GM only), which is valuable behavioral context not present in the annotations. It doesn't describe side effects or output formats, but for a create tool this is acceptable given the annotations.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It conveys the core purpose and a critical access restriction in just 13 words, making it exceptionally concise and well-structured.
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 has a complex input schema with a nested array of up to 50 items and many optional fields, but the description provides only a high-level purpose and access rule. It doesn't explain the overall payload structure or the intent of each field, and the schema itself does not describe top-level parameters. The description is insufficient for an agent to use the tool effectively without additional inference.
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 description contains no information about the parameters (campaignId, items) or their meanings. With schema description coverage at 0% for top-level parameters, the description does nothing to explain how to construct a valid request, leaving the agent reliant entirely on the raw schema structure.
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 specifies a clear action ('Create') and a specific resource ('SessionSummary mnemons'), further clarified as 'structured summaries of game sessions.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_archive_mnemons or create_quest_mnemons, and the GM-only restriction adds precise scope.
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 clearly states who may use the tool ('GM/co-GM only') and implies that players should not call it, providing a strong contextual guideline. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this over update_session_summary_mnemons or other create_*_mnemons tools, leaving some room for interpretation.
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.