dos2-gm-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Delete a GM sticky note

dos2_delete_note

Destructive

Delete a single Game Master sticky note from a campaign by UUID or exact title, including notes on Overview maps or bound to scene objects. The previous notes file is backed up for undo.

Instructions

Deletes one Game Master sticky note from the campaign, found by UUID or exact title. Works for notes on an Overview map and for notes bound to an object in a scene.

Writes Notes.lsf. 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.
Fails with an error when nothing matches. Returns the UUIDs removed and the backup id. To change a note's text
instead, use dos2_put_note.

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>",
      "note": "<note>"
    },
    "name": "dos2_delete_note"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`note`	Yes	The note's UUID or its exact title (case-insensitive), as listed by dos2_notes.
`campaign`	Yes	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.
`allow_running`	No	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.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedv0.1.1Nov 11, 2026

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 / 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 / note / description

Added value: +"The note's UUID or its exact title (case-insensitive), as listed by dos2_notes."

First observedv0.1.0Nov 11, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well past the annotations (which only say destructive/not read-only/non-idempotent): it names the file written (Notes.lsf), states a backup is taken first, gives the recovery path (dos2_restore), documents two distinct failure modes (game process running, no match), and describes the return payload. This is exactly the context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and lookup modes, then side effects, then errors, then returns. Minor redundancy in repeating 'Fails with an error' and the sibling pointer could sit beside the alternative it references, but nothing is padding.

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 three-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers side effects, backup/undo, failure conditions, return values, and the safe-use caveat on the optional flag. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly or decide not to.

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; the description still adds value by clarifying that 'note' accepts a UUID or exact title and by explaining that allow_running=true is gated on the game sitting in the main menu (with a stated consequence: lost or damaged campaign data). That is meaning beyond the schema's wording.

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 specific verb and resource ('Deletes one Game Master sticky note from the campaign'), plus the two lookup modes (UUID or exact title) and the two note placements it covers (Overview map, scene-bound object). An agent can distinguish this from dos2_put_note and the other delete_* siblings 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?

Names the explicit alternative for a related operation ('To change a note's text instead, use dos2_put_note') and gives a real precondition for allow_running=true. It stops short of stating when to prefer dos2_notes first to obtain a UUID, but the routing guidance present is clear.

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