Jump directly to any campaign level by providing the campaign and level indices, enabling instant access for testing or debugging specific stages.
Go directly to a specific campaign level
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| levelIndex | Yes | Level index within the campaign (0-based) | |
| campaignIndex | Yes | Campaign index (0-27) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only restates the action without detailing side effects, prerequisites, or whether this changes the current game state. It is unclear if this simply selects a level or actively loads/starts it.
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 filler or redundant content. The core action and target are immediately visible and front-loaded.
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?
For a simple two-parameter navigation tool, the description is minimally sufficient, but it omits context about what 'go to' actually does in the game environment and what outcome the agent should expect. Since there is no output schema or annotations, a bit more behavioral context would improve completeness.
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 input schema already describes both parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides.
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 uses a clear verb-resource pairing: 'go directly' to a 'specific campaign level', so the basic purpose is easy to grasp. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like restart_level or list_campaigns, so it falls just short of a 5.
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 no guidance about when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as restart_level or list_campaigns. The word 'directly' hints at bypassing normal progression, but this is not made explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.