Load a campaign's current state, style profile, and active encounter summaries in one call to start or resume a D&D 5e session.
开局/续团一次性载入某战役实例：当前状态(state.md)、风格档案、活动遭遇概要。 返回 {campaign, variant, state, style, active_encounters}。solo-dm 带团入口。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| variant | No | main | |
| campaign | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses what is loaded and the return shape, including state.md, style profile, and active encounters. However, it does not state whether loading has side effects, what happens for missing campaigns, or whether it creates or updates any files.
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 compact, front-loaded with the main purpose, and includes the return object in a single line. Every sentence adds useful information with no filler or repetition.
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?
The description covers the tool's purpose, return shape, and usage context well for a simple loader. However, it omits parameter semantics and behavioral details such as failure modes or side effects, leaving some gaps that an AI agent would need to infer.
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 does not explain the meaning of 'campaign' or 'variant' as parameters. It mentions them only in the return object, which provides minimal indirect context but does not compensate for the complete lack of parameter documentation.
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 a specific verb ('载入' / load) and resource ('战役实例' / campaign instance), listing the loaded components and the return object. It distinguishes this from siblings like load_style by emphasizing a one-time full-context load, though it does not explicitly name any sibling or contrast itself with them.
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 gives clear use context: '开局/续团' (starting or continuing a session) and 'solo-dm 带团入口' (entry point for solo-DM sessions). It implies when to call this tool but does not state exclusions or alternative tools explicitly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.