Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Tavern

by io.github.jakehandy
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

List my campaigns

list_campaigns
Read-onlyIdempotent

Every campaign you own or hold a seat at, and the invitations waiting for an answer. Returns: campaigns (slug, name, whether you own it and whether you are its GM) and invitations.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

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

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description adds value on top by enumerating the returned collections and the per-campaign fields (slug, name, ownership, GM flag), which matters here because no output schema exists. It stops short of describing the invitation record's fields.

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 short sentences, zero filler. The scope statement comes first and the return shape second, which is the right front-loading for a no-argument list tool.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the essential facts are covered: what is included, what categories come back, and which campaign fields are exposed. The only gap is the shape of `invitations`, which the description announces but does not describe.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description states a specific resource and a precise scope: campaigns the caller owns or holds a seat at, plus pending invitations. That scope implicitly separates it from get_campaign (single campaign), search_campaign (lookup), and list_seats, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied by the scope statement, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance such as 'use this to find the campaign slug before calling get_campaign' or 'to see which invitations need respond_to_invitation'. The agent must infer the routing.

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

All Tavern toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources