specter-skills

Create custom event (admin)

specter_create_event

Create custom events to trigger tasks and achievements in your game. Define event parameters and auto-generate a stable slug from the name.

Instructions

Create a custom event that tasks/achievements can be triggered by (e.g. "boss_defeated"). Create the event BEFORE the task that references it. eventId (slug) is auto-derived from the name. MUTATES live game config — confirm with the user and prefer staging.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "specter_create_event"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	Display name, e.g. "Boss Defeated"
`fields`	No
`eventId`	No	Stable slug (defaults to a slug of the name)
`projectId`	No
`parameters`	No	Optional event parameters the game sends, e.g. [{name:"score", type:"statistic"}]
`description`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jun 27, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Discloses mutation ('MUTATES live game config') beyond annotations, which already indicate not read-only and not idempotent. Adds user confirmation and staging preference. No contradictions with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences plus a warning, all earning their place. Front-loaded with purpose and example.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Adequate for a tool with 6 parameters and no output schema: covers purpose, ordering, and mutation. Lacks detail on fields and parameters, but sufficient for basic usage.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 50% schema coverage, description adds value by explaining eventId auto-derivation from name and giving an example for parameters. However, fields and projectId remain unexplained, and compensation is not full.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb ('Create'), resource ('custom event'), and purpose ('that tasks/achievements can be triggered by'), with an example. It distinguishes from sibling create_* tools by focusing on events.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides explicit ordering advice: 'Create the event BEFORE the task that references it' and cautions to 'confirm with the user and prefer staging' due to mutation. No explicit alternatives mentioned, but context is clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server