Skip to main content
Glama
Niclasp1501

ninjos-foundry-mcp

by Niclasp1501
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Manage active effects

manage-effects
Destructive

Create, update, or delete active effects on actors or items in Foundry VTT, with read-back validation and dropped-field reporting.

Instructions

Create, change or delete an active effect on an actor, or on an item that actor carries. The effect fields go to Foundry as given, without game system rules; Foundry drops unknown fields, and the result lists every field that was dropped or stored differently. Find effect ids with get-character (effects of the actor) or get-character-entity (effects of an item). An effect that lies on an item is changed there, with parentType "item"; parentType "actor" never touches it. create and update need the actor permission "create and change", delete needs "create, change and delete", which is off by default. Every change is read back.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
actionYesWhat to do with the effect.
effectIdNoId of the effect. Required for update and delete, not allowed for create.
effectDataNoEffect fields for create (name required) and update (at least one; lists such as changes are replaced as a whole). Not allowed for delete.
parentTypeYesEffect on the actor itself, or on one of its items.
actorIdentifierYesId, exact name (case ignored when unique) or uuid of the actor. An unlinked token actor needs its uuid.
parentItemIdentifierNoWith parentType "item" only, and required there: id or name of the item.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv14.2609.4

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint true and readOnlyHint false, and the description adds crucial behavior beyond them: Foundry drops unknown fields, the result reports dropped or differently stored fields, permission requirements differ by action, and every change is read back. This substantially raises transparency for a mutation tool.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the primary action and then efficiently covers id discovery, parentType semantics, permissions, and read-back behavior without fluff. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a mutating tool with no output schema, it covers prerequisite ids, permission requirements, system-rule behavior, and result readback behavior. An agent has enough context to invoke create, update, and delete correctly and anticipate failure modes.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds extra meaning: effect fields are passed as given without system rules, unknown fields are dropped, and parentType "actor" never touches item-level effects. This clarifies nuances the schema only hints at.

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?

States a clear verb and resource: create, change, or delete active effects on an actor or on an item the actor carries. This distinguishes it from nearby siblings like manage-actors or get-character-entity by focusing specifically on active effects.

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 concrete workflow guidance: effect ids can be found with get-character or get-character-entity, and parentType "item" vs "actor" is explicitly scoped. It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use vs game-system-specific effect tools, but the 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

Other Tools