Modify quest progress in D&D campaigns by updating status or marking objectives as completed. This tool helps track narrative advancement and manage game flow.
Update quest status or complete objectives.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | Yes | Quest title | |
| status | No | New quest status | |
| completed_objective | No | Objective to mark as completed |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool updates quests, implying mutation, but doesn't describe side effects (e.g., whether changes are reversible), permissions needed, error conditions, or what happens if multiple updates conflict. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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, efficient sentence: 'Update quest status or complete objectives.' It's front-loaded with the core action and avoids unnecessary words. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating status and objective updates for clarity, but it's still highly concise.
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 complexity of a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error handling, or behavioral nuances like whether partial updates are allowed. For a tool that modifies game state in a role-playing context, more context is needed to ensure safe and effective use.
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 100%, so the schema fully documents all three parameters (title, status, completed_objective) with descriptions and types. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema—it mentions 'status' and 'objectives' but doesn't clarify syntax, constraints, or interactions between parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 tool's purpose: 'Update quest status or complete objectives.' It specifies the verb ('update') and resource ('quest'), and indicates what can be updated (status or objectives). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_quest' or 'list_quests' beyond the update action.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing quest), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'update_game_state' or 'bulk_update_characters' that might handle quest-related updates differently. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.