Skip to main content
Glama
study-flamingo

D&D MCP Server

list_quests

Retrieve quests from your D&D campaign with optional status filters to track active, completed, failed, or on-hold adventures.

Instructions

List quests, optionally filtered by status.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
statusNoFilter by status

Implementation Reference

  • MCP tool handler for 'list_quests'. Decorated with @mcp.tool for registration. Defines input schema via Annotated parameter, fetches quests via storage layer, and formats output list.
    @mcp.tool
    def list_quests(
        status: Annotated[Literal["active", "completed", "failed", "on_hold"] | None, Field(description="Filter by status")] = None,
    ) -> str:
        """List quests, optionally filtered by status."""
        quests = storage.list_quests(status)
    
        if not quests:
            filter_text = f" with status '{status}'" if status else ""
            return f"No quests found{filter_text}."
    
        quest_list = []
        for quest_title in quests:
            quest = storage.get_quest(quest_title)
            if quest:
                status_text = f" [{quest.status}]"
                quest_list.append(f"• {quest.title}{status_text}")
    
        return "**Quests:**\n" + "\n".join(quest_list)
  • Core storage method implementing quest listing logic. Retrieves quest titles from current campaign's quests dictionary, optionally filtering by status.
    def list_quests(self, status: str | None = None) -> list[str]:
        """List quest titles, optionally filtered by status."""
        if not self._current_campaign:
            return []
    
        quests = self._current_campaign.quests
        if status:
            return [title for title, quest in quests.items() if quest.status == status]
        return list(quests.keys())
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. While 'List' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what format the results come in, whether there's pagination, rate limits, or what happens when no quests match the filter. The description lacks essential behavioral context for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core functionality without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple list tool and front-loads the essential information. Every word earns its place in this concise formulation.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (quest objects, IDs only, metadata), how results are structured, or any behavioral constraints. Given the lack of structured data about outputs and behavior, the description should provide more context about what agents can expect when invoking this tool.

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?

The description mentions 'optionally filtered by status' which aligns with the single parameter in the schema. With 100% schema description coverage and the parameter well-documented in the schema (including enum values and default), the description adds minimal value beyond what's already in structured data. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('quests') with the optional filtering capability. It distinguishes from other quest-related tools like 'create_quest' and 'update_quest' by focusing on retrieval rather than mutation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list tools like 'list_campaigns' or 'list_characters' beyond the resource type.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage for retrieving quests with optional status filtering, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_game_state' or 'get_events' that might contain quest information. There's no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or specific scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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