update_journal_mnemonsUpdate typed/meta fields of Journal mnemons.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| items | Yes | ||
| campaignId | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| results | Yes |
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 convey that this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false), idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds a mild scoping detail ('typed/meta fields'), hinting that content fields are handled elsewhere, but it does not elaborate on any side effects, auth requirements, or rate limits. This is adequate but minimal for a mutation tool with strong annotation coverage.
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 gets straight to the point. Every word earns its place, and there is no fluff or repetition. This is ideal conciseness.
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?
Despite having an output schema and annotations, the tool's complexity is high due to the nested items array with numerous optional fields and an ambiguous entryId format. The description does not explain how to construct items, what 'typed/meta fields' refers to, or how this differs from content updates. The completeness is inadequate for effective invocation.
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 schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not compensate. It only says 'typed/meta fields' without explaining the many parameters inside the items array (e.g., title, tags, visibility, involvedCharacterIds). The only parameter description in the schema (entryId) is helpful, but the description adds no additional meaning or examples. This leaves the agent guessing about field formats and semantics.
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 action ('Update') and the specific resource ('Journal mnemons'), and narrows the scope to 'typed/meta fields.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_archive_mnemons or update_mnemons_content. It is specific, verb-first, and unambiguous.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_mnemons_content or other update_*_mnemons tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or context where this tool is preferred, leaving the agent to infer from the name and title alone.
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.