update_quest_mnemonsUpdate typed/meta fields of Quest mnemons (status transitions, expiry, related entries).
| 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.
Input schema / properties / items / items / properties / rewardsAdded value: +{
+ "description": "If present, replaces the entire rewards list.",
+ "items": {
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "amount": {
+ "description": "Numeric amount for stack-like rewards.",
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "itemId": {
+ "description": "Optional reference to an item entry.",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "label": {
+ "description": "Display label (e.g. '100 gp', 'Ancient map').",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "linkedStepIds": {
+ "description": "stepIds and/or subquest entry ids whose completion unlocks this reward.",
+ "items": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "notes": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "rewardType": {
+ "description": "Bucket: Gold | Item | XP | Reputation | etc.",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+}Input schema / properties / items / items / properties / stepsAdded value: +{
+ "description": "If present, replaces the entire steps list. Omit to leave steps untouched.",
+ "items": {
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "description": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "notes": {
+ "description": "Free-text bullet notes for the step.",
+ "items": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "status": {
+ "description": "Defaults to 'Available' when omitted. Unknown values are coerced server-side.",
+ "enum": [
+ "Hidden",
+ "Available",
+ "Active",
+ "Completed",
+ "Failed",
+ "TurnedIn",
+ "Abandoned",
+ "Expired",
+ "OnHold"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "stepId": {
+ "description": "Optional. Server generates a fresh UUID when blank. Provide an existing stepId to reuse linkedStepIds.",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "targetLocationEntryIds": {
+ "description": "Locations involved in this step.",
+ "items": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "targetNpcEntryIds": {
+ "description": "NPCs involved in this step (entryIds or titles).",
+ "items": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "title": {
+ "description": "Short label for the step, e.g. 'Talk to the innkeeper'.",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "title"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds a small amount of behavioral context by listing field types affected ('status transitions, expiry, related entries'), but does not disclose behaviors like list-replacement semantics, which are only in the schema.
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 that immediately states the action and resource. It is concise with no filler, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.
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?
This is a complex tool with a nested items array, numerous optional fields, and replacement semantics for steps/rewards. The description does not mention bulk update capabilities, constraints like max 50 items, or the fact that certain lists are fully replaced when present. The output schema exists, but the description is too minimal for the tool's complexity.
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?
With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate. It provides examples of updatable fields ('status transitions, expiry, related entries') that map to parameters, but does not explain the structure of the items array or the required campaignId. The schema contains detailed field descriptions, but the description itself adds limited parameter meaning.
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 the action ('Update'), the resource ('Quest mnemons'), and the scope ('typed/meta fields') with concrete examples ('status transitions, expiry, related entries'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like update_mnemons_content by focusing on typed/meta fields rather than content.
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 phrase 'typed/meta fields' implies this tool is for quest metadata updates rather than content, but it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like update_mnemons_content or create_quest_mnemons. There are no explicit exclusions or alternative recommendations.
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.