Skip to main content
Glama

analyze_project

Read-onlyIdempotent

Analyze the entire RPG Maker project with multiple lenses: overview for health summary, validation for consistency checks, graph for map transfers, usage tracking, and search.

Instructions

Read-only project intelligence: builds (and caches) an in-memory model of the WHOLE project so you can reason about it instead of re-reading files. view selects the lens: "overview" (default) returns game title, entity/map/event counts, a health summary (errors/warnings/info) with the top issues, and any maps unreachable from the start map — the fastest way to understand a project you did not build; "index" returns the structured digest (every map with its event count, common events, and only the NAMED switches/variables); "validate" runs every consistency check (broken transfers to non-existent maps, MapInfos entries whose Map file is missing, events that call missing common events / items / weapons / armors / troops / animations, duplicate database IDs, named-but-unused switches/variables, bad starting position, unreachable maps) returning {issueCount, bySeverity, issues[]}, optionally filtered by severity; "graph" returns the map transfer network (nodes, directed edges) plus reachability from the start map; "usage" answers "what uses X?" — pass kind (switch/variable/common_event/item/weapon/armor/troop/animation/actor/state/map) and id to get every event, common event and troop that references it, with read/write roles for switches/variables; "explain" reasons about one thing — target "switch"/"variable" + id tells you whether it is set, read, gated, a dead write, or never-set (the usual reason a door/event never triggers), and target "map" + id reports incoming transfers, what becomes unreachable if it is deleted, and whether it is the start map; "ast" parses one event page (mapId + eventId, optional page) or a common event (commonEventId) into a logical tree with a readable outline; "plugins" fuses js/plugins.js with each plugin file's @plugindesc/@author/@param/@command/@help header so you can adapt to the project's OWN systems instead of emitting vanilla events (and flags configured plugins whose file is missing); "critique" reviews ONE map (mapId) like a game designer — dead space, empty/cluttered balance, event distribution across quadrants, floor monotony, fragmented walkable regions — returning metrics plus justified, actionable suggestions and a rough score; "refactor" finds command sequences copy-pasted across events/common events and suggests extracting them into a Common Event; "search" ranks the project's human-readable text (map/NPC names, dialogue, item/skill descriptions, notes) against a free-text query like "the blacksmith" or "the dark forest". Nothing is written. Pair with the editor tools to act on what you find.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idNoviews "usage"/"explain": numeric id of the switch/variable/map/entity to inspect
kindNoview "usage": what kind of entity `id` refers to
pageNoview "ast": which page of the event (0-based, default 0)
viewNoWhich lens to apply (default "overview")
limitNoview "search": max results (default 20)
mapIdNoview "ast": the map holding the event to parse
queryNoview "search": free-text query, e.g. "the blacksmith", "dark forest"
minLenNoview "refactor": minimum shared command-run length to report (default 4)
targetNoview "explain": what `id` refers to (default "switch")
eventIdNoview "ast": the event on `mapId` to parse
severityNoview "validate": keep only issues of this severity
commonEventIdNoview "ast": parse this common event instead of a map event
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds details: caching of the model, whole-project scope, and specific behaviors for each view (e.g., validate returns issueCount, bySeverity, issues[]). No contradictions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is quite long but well-structured with a front-loaded purpose and a bullet-like listing of views. While every sentence adds value, the length could be reduced without losing clarity. Still, it maintains reasonable conciseness for a complex tool.

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?

Given 12 parameters, no output schema, and multiple views, the description covers all behaviors, outputs for each lens, parameter dependencies, and caching. It is fully sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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% with descriptions for all 12 parameters. The description adds significant extra context by associating parameters with specific views (e.g., 'view=usage expects kind and id'), explaining enum values, and detailing output formats. This goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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?

The description clearly states the tool provides read-only project intelligence, building an in-memory model for reasoning. It enumerates specific lenses (overview, index, validate, etc.), differentiating it from sibling tools like edit_map or manage_map_event which modify the project.

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 states 'Read-only project intelligence' and 'Nothing is written.' Advises to pair with editor tools for action. This tells the agent when to use (analysis) and when not to (modification), with clear alternatives.

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/DiegoLopez0208/RpgMakerMVUltimate-MCP'

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