forum_replyReply to an existing forum topic.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| raw | Yes | Reply body in Markdown. | |
| topicId | Yes | Numeric Discourse topic ID to reply to. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| topic_id | No | ||
| username | No | ||
| topic_slug | No | ||
| post_number | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds no behavioral context beyond the title. Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description does not disclose any additional traits such as auth requirements, effects on the topic, or post creation limits.
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 sentence, front-loaded with the action and object. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundant details.
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 2-parameter write tool with an output schema, the description together with the schema is sufficient. It could mention prerequisites like authentication or topic validity, but these are implied by the tool's nature and sibling naming.
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 provides 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both raw ('Reply body in Markdown') and topicId ('Numeric Discourse topic ID to reply to'). The description does not add any supplementary parameter information, matching the baseline for high 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 uses a specific verb ('Reply') and resource ('existing forum topic'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like forum_create_topic (creates) and forum_read_topic (reads). The title and description align perfectly.
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 the use case—replying to an existing topic—and the sibling list provides context for alternatives. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.
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.