update_lore_mnemonsUpdate typed/meta fields of Lore 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 indicate, but do not describe, the mutation behavior (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true). The description adds no detail on whether updates are partial (merge) or full replacements, what happens to unspecified fields, or any side effects. This is a critical gap for a mutation tool.
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 with no fluff. It front-loads the verb and resource. However, it is so brief that it omits useful context, but for what it says, it is efficiently structured.
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 complexity (nested items array, 2 top-level params, many sibling tools), the one-line description is insufficient. It lacks guidance on field semantics, update behavior, and how it differs from update_mnemons_content. The output schema exists but does not compensate for missing behavioral and usage context.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0% at the top level, and the description does not explain the parameters. It mentions 'typed/meta fields' but does not enumerate them or clarify that campaignId and items are required, nor how nested item fields interact. The schema provides structure but no semantic richness, and the description does not compensate.
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 updates 'typed/meta fields' of 'Lore mnemons', specifying both the resource and the scope. This distinguishes it from siblings like update_mnemons_content (content fields) and update_*_mnemons for other types. The verb 'Update' is specific 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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many update_*_mnemons siblings, it does not state that content updates should use update_mnemons_content or that other mnemonic types require different tools. Usage is only implied by the name and resource mention.
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.