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

dos2-gm-mcp

by o-shabashov
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Replace the GM journal

dos2_put_journal
DestructiveIdempotent

Replaces a campaign's entire Game Master journal—categories, chapters, and paragraphs—with the structure you provide. Read the current journal first, then send back your edits.

Instructions

Replaces the campaign's whole Game Master journal (categories, chapters, paragraphs) with the structure you pass. Entries that are not in categories are removed, so read the current journal with dos2_campaign first and send it back with your changes.

Writes Journal.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.
The shared flag was not verified against Larian's samples; the GM can also share entries in the game. Returns
the backup id and the journal as it now reads.

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>",
      "categories": "<categories>"
    },
    "name": "dos2_put_journal"
  }
}

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.
categoriesYesThe whole journal, in display order: [{"title": "...", "shared": false, "chapters": [{"title": "...", "shared": false, "paragraphs": [{"text": "...", "shared": false}]}]}]. shared=true is meant to show the entry to players.
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. Changed3 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 / 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 / categories / description
      Added value: +"The whole journal, in display order: [{\"title\": \"...\", \"shared\": false, \"chapters\": [{\"title\": \"...\", \"shared\": false, \"paragraphs\": [{\"text\": \"...\", \"shared\": false}]}]}]. shared=true is meant to show the entry to players."
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well past the annotations (destructive/idempotent/non-readonly) by naming the concrete consequence — entries absent from categories are removed — plus the file written (Journal.lsf), automatic backup, the undo path via dos2_restore, the failure mode while the game is running, and the unverified shared flag.

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 destructive consequence and the read-first workflow are front-loaded, and each sentence carries a distinct fact (backup, undo, running-process failure, return values). The closing note about the unverified shared flag is slightly tangential but still decision-relevant.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description states what comes back (backup id and the journal as it now reads), and it covers the destructive semantics, prerequisites, and recovery path for a whole-file replacement tool.

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 meaning by framing categories as the entire journal in display order and warning that omission means deletion. allow_running and campaign are left to the schema, which already documents them well.

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 — 'Replaces the campaign's whole Game Master journal (categories, chapters, paragraphs)' — and makes the replace-whole-structure scope explicit, which separates it from single-entry siblings like dos2_put_note.

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?

Gives an explicit read-modify-write workflow: read the journal with dos2_campaign first and send it back with changes, undo with dos2_restore, and only set allow_running=true after the user confirms the game is in the main menu. Alternatives and preconditions are named, not inferred.

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