get_sessionGet details of a single campaign session.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sessionId | Yes | Session ID. | |
| campaignId | Yes | Campaign ID. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| endAt | No | ||
| title | Yes | ||
| guildId | No | ||
| startAt | Yes | ||
| createdAt | No | ||
| updatedAt | No | ||
| campaignId | Yes | ||
| description | No | ||
| invitedUserIds | No | ||
| createdByUserId | No | ||
| invitedPartyIds | No | ||
| attendanceReplies | 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, covering the safety profile. The description adds 'single' as a scoping detail, but does not disclose any other behavioral traits such as response format, error behavior, or prerequisites. It aligns with annotations and provides minimal additional context.
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, concise sentence that conveys the essential purpose without any unnecessary words or repetition. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the action.
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 tool's simplicity (two string parameters), existing annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description is adequate. It does not explain that both IDs are required, but that is captured in the schema. The description could be slightly more informative about what 'details' includes, but overall it is sufficient for a read-only getter.
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?
Input schema coverage is 100%, with both parameters (campaignId, sessionId) having brief descriptions. The tool description adds no further meaning about the parameters, their relationship, or expected values. With high schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 tool's function: 'Get details of a single campaign session.' It uses a specific verb ('Get'), identifies the resource ('campaign session'), and specifies scope ('single'), which distinguishes it from siblings like list_sessions and create_session. This is a clear and specific purpose statement.
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 usage through its wording ('Get details of a single campaign session'), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., list_sessions for multiple sessions). No exclusions or alternative tools are named, so usage guidance is only implicit.
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.