Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Tavern

by io.github.jakehandy
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Change a campaign's look and letters

update_campaign_look

Set the table's accent colour and its mark (null puts the default back), and whether everybody at the table is emailed when you post the first notes on a session. GM only. Returns: The campaign.

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": {
      "campaign": "<campaign>"
    },
    "name": "update_campaign_look"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
iconNoMark key.
accentNoAccent colour key.
campaignYesThe campaign, by its slug (what its link says) or its id.
notesEmailNoEmail the table when the GM posts a session's notes. On by default.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / notesEmail
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Email the table when the GM posts a session's notes. On by default.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark this as a non-readonly, non-destructive mutation; the description adds a genuine authorization constraint ('GM only') and the reset-by-null behavior, which are not in the structured data. It also states the return value (the campaign), which the absent output schema would otherwise leave unknown. It does not address partial-update semantics for omitted fields.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The mutation semantics are front-loaded and every clause carries information; 'GM only' and 'Returns: The campaign.' are compact and useful. The opening sentence is a bit dense and run-on, but there is no filler.

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 four-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the fields, the null/reset semantics, the permission requirement, and the return value. The only real gap is what happens to fields omitted entirely from the call.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline would be 3, but the description adds meaning the schema lacks: that passing null resets the accent and mark to defaults, and it expands notesEmail into the actual behavior (emailing everyone when the first session notes are posted). It does not explain the enum keys further, but those are self-documenting.

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 names the specific resources being changed (accent colour, mark, notes-email flag) with the verb 'Set', so an agent knows exactly which fields this tool mutates. It is distinguishable from generic campaign tools like update_session or update_profile_settings, though it never names a sibling alternative directly.

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?

It gives concrete usage rules: GM only, and 'null puts the default back' for the look fields. It does not explicitly say when to prefer this over other campaign-editing tools, but the scoping to look/letters makes the boundary reasonably clear.

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