forum_read_topicRead the full content of a forum topic including all posts and replies. Post bodies are returned as plain text (HTML markup is stripped).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| topicId | Yes | Numeric Discourse topic ID. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| slug | Yes | ||
| title | Yes | ||
| post_stream | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral detail: 'Post bodies are returned as plain text (HTML markup is stripped),' which informs the agent about the return format. No contradiction with 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 two sentences: the first states the primary purpose, the second adds a relevant formatting detail. No redundant words or unnecessary information.
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 simple read operation with one parameter, full schema coverage, and an output schema present, the description covers the essential behavior (full content, all replies, plain text). No additional context is 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 input schema fully documents topicId as 'Numeric Discourse topic ID' with 100% coverage. The description adds no further parameter details, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage; the baseline of 3 applies.
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 'Read the full content of a forum topic including all posts and replies,' specifying the action, resource, and scope. This distinguishes it from listing/searching tools like forum_list_topics and forum_search.
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 phrase 'full content' and 'all posts and replies' provides clear context for when to use this tool: when a complete topic is needed. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it stops slightly short of full guidance.
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.