Skip to main content
Glama

romm_rom_notes

View notes associated with a specific ROM in the RomM library to track details and management information.

Instructions

View notes on a ROM.

rom_id: The ROM's ID (from romm_library_items or romm_search).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
rom_idYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function `romm_rom_notes` fetches notes for a specific ROM ID from the API and formats them into a string.
    @mcp.tool()
    async def romm_rom_notes(rom_id: int) -> str:
        """View notes on a ROM.
    
        rom_id: The ROM's ID (from romm_library_items or romm_search).
        """
        data = await _get(f"roms/{rom_id}/notes")
    
        if not isinstance(data, list) or not data:
            return f"No notes found for ROM {rom_id}."
    
        lines = [f"Notes for ROM {rom_id} ({len(data)}):\n"]
        for n in data:
            body = n.get("raw_markdown") or n.get("body", "")
            created = n.get("created_at", "")
            updated = n.get("updated_at", "")
            note_id = n.get("id", "?")
    
            if body:
                short = body[:300]
                if len(body) > 300:
                    short += "..."
                lines.append(f"  [{note_id}] {short}")
            if created:
                line = f"    Created: {created}"
                if updated and updated != created:
                    line += f" | Updated: {updated}"
                lines.append(line)
            lines.append("")
    
        return "\n".join(lines)
Behavior2/5

Does 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 'View notes', implying a read-only operation, but does not cover aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what the output contains. This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation support, as critical behavioral traits are missing.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated in the first sentence and parameter details in the second. There is no wasted text, making it efficient and easy to parse, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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 the tool's low complexity (1 parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is somewhat complete but lacks depth. It covers the basic purpose and parameter source but misses usage guidelines and behavioral details. With no annotations, it should provide more context to fully guide an agent, resulting in a mediocre score.

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?

The description adds minimal semantics for the single parameter by explaining that rom_id is 'The ROM's ID (from romm_library_items or romm_search)'. This provides context beyond the schema's type definition, but with 0% schema description coverage, it only partially compensates. The baseline is 3 since the schema covers the parameter structurally, but the description offers some useful clarification.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with the verb 'View' and the resource 'notes on a ROM', making it specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'romm_get_item' or 'romm_library_items', which might also retrieve ROM-related information, leaving some ambiguity about its unique role.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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 mentions the rom_id parameter source but does not specify contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions. For example, it doesn't clarify if this is for detailed notes versus basic ROM info from other tools, leaving usage decisions unclear.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

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/lodordev/mcp-romm'

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