Skip to main content
Glama
study-flamingo

D&D MCP Server

create_quest

Generate structured quests for D&D campaigns by defining objectives, rewards, givers, and narrative details to organize adventure content.

Instructions

Create a new quest.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
titleYesQuest title
descriptionYesQuest description
giverNoQuest giver (NPC name)
objectivesNoQuest objectives
rewardNoQuest reward
notesNoAdditional notes

Implementation Reference

  • The main handler function for the 'create_quest' tool. It is registered via the @mcp.tool decorator, defines the input schema using Pydantic's Annotated and Field, creates a Quest model instance, and persists it using the storage layer.
    @mcp.tool
    def create_quest(
        title: Annotated[str, Field(description="Quest title")],
        description: Annotated[str, Field(description="Quest description")],
        giver: Annotated[str | None, Field(description="Quest giver (NPC name)")] = None,
        objectives: Annotated[list[str] | None, Field(description="Quest objectives")] = None,
        reward: Annotated[str | None, Field(description="Quest reward")] = None,
        notes: Annotated[str, Field(description="Additional notes")] = "",
    ) -> str:
        """Create a new quest."""
        quest = Quest(
            title=title,
            description=description,
            giver=giver,
            objectives=objectives or [],
            reward=reward,
            notes=notes
        )
    
        storage.add_quest(quest)
        return f"Created quest '{quest.title}'"
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but only states the action ('Create a new quest'). It doesn't mention what happens after creation (e.g., where the quest appears, if it's saved to a database), permission requirements, side effects, error conditions, or whether this is a write operation (implied but not explicit). For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 at just three words. It's front-loaded with the core action and contains zero wasted words or redundant information. While under-specified, it's not verbose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a creation tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'quest' is in this system, how it relates to other entities (campaigns, characters), what happens after creation, or what the tool returns. The context signals show significant complexity that the description doesn't address.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to guidelines, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Create a new quest' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding specificity. It doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'create_campaign', 'create_character', or 'create_location', nor does it specify what type of quest or in what context. The verb 'create' is clear but the resource 'quest' is too generic given the sibling tools.

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, context (e.g., must be in a campaign), or comparison to sibling tools like 'update_quest' or 'list_quests'. The description offers zero usage instructions.

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/study-flamingo/gamemaster-mcp'

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