Skip to main content
Glama

List GM sticky notes

dos2_notes
Read-onlyIdempotent

Returns all Game Master sticky notes of a campaign with their full text and folder, map, or scene details. Use for read-only note review when titles alone are insufficient.

Instructions

Returns all Game Master sticky notes of the campaign with their full text. Each note has uuid, title, text, folder and kind: a "map" note sits on an Overview map (map UUID, x and y in map pixels), a "scene" note is bound to an object inside a scene (scene ID and the bound object). Players never see these notes.

Read-only. When titles are enough, dos2_campaign is cheaper. Create or change a note with dos2_put_note and
remove one with dos2_delete_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>"
    },
    "name": "dos2_notes"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
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.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.1.1
    • 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."
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces 'Read-only' rather than contradicting it. Beyond that it adds genuinely useful context not in the annotations: that notes are GM-only and invisible to players, and how the two note kinds differ in what they reference. It stops short of describing ordering or volume/pagination behavior, which is the remaining gap.

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?

Front-loads the return content, then the per-kind structure, then routing guidance – a sensible order with essentially no filler. The kind explanation is the longest block but earns its place by disambiguating otherwise cryptic fields; minor trim possible on phrasing.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-shape explanation is optional and the description still summarizes the fields, while annotations carry the safety profile and the text covers routing to siblings. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly 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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100% – the schema already explains accepted campaign identifiers and points to dos2_status for discovery. The description adds nothing about the campaign argument, so this is the baseline competent case rather than added value.

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 ('Returns all Game Master sticky notes of the campaign') and immediately conveys scope (full text, all notes) so an agent can distinguish it from single-note writers or the lighter campaign listing. The kind breakdown (map vs scene) further pins down what the resource actually is.

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 routes the agent: 'When titles are enough, dos2_campaign is cheaper' for the read-only lighter path, plus direct pointers to dos2_put_note for creation/change and dos2_delete_note for removal. That covers both the alternative-read and the mutating alternatives by name.

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