Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
dos2-gm-mcp

dos2-gm-mcp

by o-shabashov
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Edit campaign name, description, author

dos2_campaign_meta
DestructiveIdempotent

Edits a DOS2 campaign's name, description, and author in meta.lsf with a backup, or returns the current metadata when no fields are given.

Instructions

Changes the campaign's name, description and author in meta.lsf, the same fields the game edits in its campaign settings. Only the fields you pass are changed. With none of them given nothing is written and the current metadata is returned.

The campaign folder keeps its name, because the game identifies the campaign by it. The previous file is backed up first; undo with dos2_restore.
Fails with an error while the game process is running unless allow_running=true. Returns the backup id and the resulting metadata.

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": "dos2_campaign_meta"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoNew campaign name as shown in the game's campaign list. Omit to keep the current one.
authorNoNew author name. Omit to keep the current one.
campaignYesThe campaign to work on: its name, its folder name, its UUID, or a unique part of any of them. dos2_status lists the campaigns.
descriptionNoNew campaign description. Omit to keep the current one.
allow_runningNoKeep false. Set true only after the user has confirmed that the running game sits in the main menu: a write into a campaign that is loaded in the game gets lost or damages it.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed5 schema fields changedv0.1.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / allow_running / description
      Added value: +"Keep false. Set true only after the user has confirmed that the running game sits in the main menu: a write into a campaign that is loaded in the game gets lost or damages it."
    • addedInput schema / properties / author / description
      Added value: +"New author name. Omit to keep the current one."
    • addedInput schema / properties / campaign / description
      Added value: +"The campaign to work on: its name, its folder name, its UUID, or a unique part of any of them. dos2_status lists the campaigns."
    • addedInput schema / properties / description / description
      Added value: +"New campaign description. Omit to keep the current one."
    • addedInput schema / properties / name / description
      Added value: +"New campaign name as shown in the game's campaign list. Omit to keep the current one."
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true): it discloses the pre-write backup, the undo path, the folder-name immutability constraint, the runtime failure mode, and the return payload (backup id plus resulting metadata). That is exactly the context an agent needs before triggering a destructive write.

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?

Four short paragraphs, each front-loaded with its point: what changes, partial-update semantics, side effects/undo, and failure/return behavior. No sentence is redundant with another.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema, the description still covers return values, backup/undo, the running-game guard, and the non-obvious fact that the folder name is preserved. Nothing an agent needs to call this safely is missing.

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 the schema already documents every parameter including the omit-to-keep semantics and the allow_running warning. The description adds only the failure behavior tied to allow_running, which is marginal value over the schema baseline.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Changes the campaign's name, description and author in meta.lsf') and pins the scope to exactly the fields the game edits in campaign settings. An agent can tell this apart from dos2_campaign (campaign-level operations) and dos2_restore (undo) without opening a schema.

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?

Gives explicit conditions: nothing is written when no fields are passed (current metadata returned instead), the tool fails while the game runs unless allow_running=true, and undo is routed to dos2_restore. It lacks an explicit contrast with dos2_campaign for campaign-level edits, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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