update_player_mnemonsUpdate typed/meta fields of Player 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 already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the context that this updates typed/meta fields but does not disclose whether updates are partial or full replacements, how missing fields are handled, or any side effects. Adequate but not rich.
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, front-loaded sentence with no useless words. It is concise and quickly conveys the core purpose. While it could include more detail, the structure is efficient for the tool's straightforward naming.
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 up to 50 entries, 7 optional fields, output schema present), the description is far too thin. It does not explain update semantics, how entries are matched, or what the response contains. The agent is left with significant gaps.
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% (only the nested entryId field has a description). The description says 'typed/meta fields' but does not explain what each parameter (e.g., partyId, characterId, visibility, parentEntryId) means or how they relate. The field names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the lack of description places a burden on the agent that is not met.
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 'Update typed/meta fields of Player mnemons' clearly states the verb (update), resource (Player mnemons), and scope (typed/meta fields), distinguishing it from sibling tools like update_custom_mnemons and update_mnemons_content. However, 'typed/meta fields' is somewhat vague and could be more explicit about what those fields are.
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 implies usage for Player mnemons but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not name alternatives or explain how this differs from update_mnemons_content or other type-specific update tools, so the agent must infer from the name.
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.