Add a new ability to a Kanka campaign by providing the campaign ID and ability data. Use this to expand your worldbuilding with custom powers, spells, or traits.
Create a new ability
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | ||
| campaignId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'Create a new ability.' It fails to mention required campaign context, side effects, idempotency, auth requirements, or what happens on success.
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 short but under-specified; the single sentence merely restates the tool's name and purpose without adding value. True conciseness would front-load critical details like the required campaignId and the expected structure of data.
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 two required parameters, a nested data object, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is completely inadequate. An agent cannot determine what to pass for data, what campaignId refers to, or what a successful creation returns, making the tool effectively unusable from the description alone.
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%, and the description provides no explanation of either parameter. The 'data' property is an untyped object with no defined shape, and 'campaignId' has no semantic meaning attached, leaving the agent unable to construct a valid request.
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 'Create a new ability' clearly states a specific action and resource, distinguishing it from get_ability, update_ability, delete_ability, and list_abilities. However, it offers no detail about what an ability is in this domain, so it lacks explicit differentiation from the many other create_* sibling tools.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_ability or create_character. The intended use case must be inferred entirely from the tool name, with no exclusions or conditions stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.