RPG MCP Server

by fritzprix

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

JavaScript

Local

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.3.2
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a distinct, non-overlapping purpose: createGame initializes, getGame retrieves state, progressStory advances narrative, promptUserActions presents choices, selectAction processes user input, selectRestart handles restart, and updateGame modifies state. No ambiguity between tools.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent camelCase verb_noun pattern (e.g., createGame, progressStory, promptUserActions). Names are descriptive and predictable.
Tool Count5/5
With 7 tools, the set is well-scoped for an RPG server, covering essential operations (create, read, update, progression, user interaction, restart) without unnecessary bloat or gaps.
Completeness5/5
The tools form a complete lifecycle: create → progress → prompt → select → update → (loop or restart). All necessary stages for dynamic narrative gameplay are present, and the flow is clearly documented.
Average 4/5 across 7 of 7 tools scored. Lowest: 3.4/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on October 20, 2025
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions retrieving a summary and instructing to create a new game but does not clarify side effects, authorization needs, or rate limits. The mixed read/instruction nature is ambiguous.
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?
Two sentences with front-loaded main action. Efficient and easy to parse, though could benefit from slightly more structure (e.g., separating output and side effects).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is adequate for a simple tool but lacks details on what the 'final game state summary' contains and how the instruction to create a new game is executed. Sibling tools (createGame) hint at the workflow, but more clarity would help.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% for the single parameter gameId, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's 'ID of the ended game'.
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?
Description clearly states the tool restarts the game after game over and retrieves a final game state summary. It distinguishes itself from siblings like createGame by not actually creating a new game but instructing to do so. However, the exact scope of 'instructs' is slightly ambiguous.
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?
Explicitly specifies when to use ('when the player clicks the Restart button on the Game Over screen'). No mention of when not to use or alternatives, 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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description lacks details about side effects (e.g., whether it's a write operation, changes game state, or requires specific permissions). 'Process' is vague.
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 sentences, no fluff, front-loaded with purpose and flow information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While the flow with siblings is clear, the description lacks details on return values, error handling, or what 'continue the game flow' entails. No output schema to compensate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all three parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides.
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?
Clearly states it processes user selection from UI and continues game flow, and distinguishes from sibling tools like promptUserActions and updateGame by specifying the sequence.
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?
Explicitly instructs to call after promptUserActions and to use updateGame next, providing clear context for when to use this tool and what to do after.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits like whether progress is saved, destructive effects, or auth requirements, leaving the agent with minimal safety context.
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, front-loaded sentences with zero redundancy. Efficient and clear.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequate for a simple tool but lacks output description or behavioral detail, which is needed since no annotations or output schema exist.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so parameters are already defined. Description adds minor clarification ('should describe what happens next') but is not essential beyond schema.
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?
Clearly states the verb 'advance' and resource 'game narrative', and distinguishes from siblings like createGame (creation) and promptUserActions (presenting choices).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly says to call after createGame or updateGame and to use promptUserActions next, providing clear sequential guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool creates a game and returns it with a gameId, but does not mention any side effects, permissions, rate limits, or potential failures. The behavioral transparency is adequate but not thorough.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and the second sentence adds valuable next-step guidance. Every sentence serves a clear function with no extraneous content.
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?
Given the absence of an output schema, the description adequately explains the return value (created game with gameId). It also mentions next steps. However, it does not cover error scenarios or constraints beyond the schema. Overall, it is fairly complete for a creation tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and the schema already includes a detailed description and example for initialStateInJson. The description adds only a generic 'complete initial state' phrase, providing little extra semantic value beyond the schema.
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?
The description clearly states the verb 'Create' and the resource 'new RPG game', and specifies that it returns the game with an assigned gameId. It distinguishes from siblings like updateGame and progressStory by implying this is the initial creation step.
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?
The description provides explicit next-step guidance: 'Use updateGame or progressStory next to continue the game flow.' This helps the agent understand the tool's place in the workflow, though it lacks any when-not-to-use or prerequisite information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It states it retrieves state, implying idempotency, but does not mention side effects, rate limits, or auth requirements. Minimal but adequate for a simple read operation.
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 sentences with zero wasted words. First sentence defines action and resource, second sentence provides usage context. Highly efficient and front-loaded.
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 single-parameter retrieval tool, the description adequately covers its purpose and when to use it. It doesn't specify output format, but given no output schema, 'complete current state' sets reasonable expectations. Slightly vague but sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with 'gameId' described as 'ID of the game to retrieve'. The description adds 'by its ID', reinforcing the schema, but no additional semantic value beyond what the schema provides.
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?
The description clearly states the verb 'Retrieve' and the resource 'complete current state of a game by its ID'. This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like createGame and updateGame, which are write operations.
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?
The description explicitly says 'Use this tool anytime to inspect the game state', providing clear when-to-use context. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives, though the sibling list implies the read-only role.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: returns complete updated state, supports nested updates via path notation, and manages game over flags. However, it omits details like persistence, authorization, or atomicity, leaving some behavioral gaps.
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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and efficiently covers purpose, key behavior, and sibling guidance without superfluous detail.
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?
Given no output schema, the description appropriately states it returns the complete updated state. It also covers game over conditions and references a sibling tool. Minor gaps exist (e.g., not mentioning update limits), but for a moderate-complexity tool it is reasonably complete.
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%, but the description adds value beyond schema by explaining nested path notation with examples and clarifying the roles of isGameOver and gameOverReason. This elevates it above the baseline of 3.
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?
The description clearly states 'Update a specific field in the game state' and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like progressStory by noting when to use that instead. It provides a specific verb and resource with clarification on scope.
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?
The description gives guidance on when to set isGameOver and explicitly mentions using progressStory for narrative advancement, providing context for tool selection. However, it does not cover when to use updateGame versus getGame or createGame, though those are distinct.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It explains that the tool presents options and waits for user input, completing the story cycle. It does not disclose side effects or return behavior, but the context of a game interaction makes this acceptable. Slight gap in describing what happens after user selection.
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 description is well-structured with a clear opening sentence and bullet-like guidance. It is front-loaded and every sentence adds value, though slightly verbose with repeated emphasis on mixing outcomes. Could be tightened without losing meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description explains the role in the game loop but omits what the tool returns (e.g., user selection indication). With no output schema, this gap affects completeness. However, the sequence of tools is hinted at, partially mitigating the issue.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, yet the description adds substantial meaning beyond the schema, especially for the 'options' parameter. It provides concrete examples, mixing rules, and alignment guidance, enabling the AI to craft appropriate options.
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?
The description clearly states the verb 'Present' and the resource 'user with action options'. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying it should be called after progressStory and before selectAction, and by defining the unique requirement of mixing positive and negative outcomes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states when to use ('after progressStory') and what to use next ('selectAction'). Provides detailed guidance on constructing options with varied consequences, strategies, and alignments, making it clear how and when to invoke this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![role-playing-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/fritzprix/role-playing-mcp-server/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/fritzprix/role-playing-mcp-server)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![role-playing-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/fritzprix/role-playing-mcp-server/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/fritzprix/role-playing-mcp-server)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/fritzprix/role-playing-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server