get_guildRetrieve full details of a guild (members, campaigns, calendar metadata).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| guildId | Yes | Guild ID to retrieve. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| members | No | ||
| ownerId | Yes | ||
| summary | No | ||
| campaignIds | 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by specifying the kind of data returned (members, campaigns, calendar metadata), giving the agent a better expectation of the response content without contradicting 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 that immediately states the action and target. It contains no wasteful words and is highly scannable.
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?
Given the simple single-parameter signature, full schema description, output schema availability, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description provides enough context for correct tool selection and invocation. The enumeration of content types makes the tool's scope clear without needing to explain return formats.
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 describes the only parameter (guildId) with 100% coverage. The description does not add additional parameter-level details, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already carries the semantic burden.
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 ('Retrieve') and resource ('full details of a guild'), and enumerates the included content (members, campaigns, calendar metadata). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_guilds (lists guilds) and get_campaign (retrieves a campaign).
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 implies usage when you need detailed information about a single guild identified by guildId. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools, but the context is clear given the singular resource and the guildId parameter.
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.