Skip to main content
Glama
DiegoLopez0208

RPG-MAKER-MV-MCP

by DiegoLopez0208
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

delete_database_entry

DestructiveIdempotent

Delete an RPG Maker MV database entry by ID, refusing while events, troops, or other records still reference it; use dryRun to preview or force to override.

Instructions

DESTRUCTIVE: delete a database entry by nulling it out in its data file (written immediately; not undoable — re-create it if needed; IDs are never reused). The delete is refused while anything still references the entry, listing every place: events, common events, troop pages, page conditions, map encounters, the starting party, actor classes and starting equipment, class learnings, enemy actions and drops, troop members, traits, item and skill effects, animations. Fix those first, pass dryRun:true to preview the list, or force:true to delete anyway (the result then lists brokenReferences). References are never cleaned up automatically. NEVER delete skill 1 (Attack), skill 2 (Guard) or state 1 (KO); the engine uses them directly. Supported entities: actors, classes, skills, items, weapons, armors, enemies, states, troops, animations. Returns the deleted object for reference; fails with an error if the ID does not exist.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesID of the entry to delete (never skill 1/2 or state 1)
forceNoDelete even though something still references it (default false)
entityYesWhich database contains the entry to delete

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv5.19.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / entity / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "actors",
-  "classes",
-  "skills",
-  "items",
-  "weapons",
-  "armors",
-  "enemies",
-  "states"
-]New value: +[
+  "actors",
+  "classes",
+  "skills",
+  "items",
+  "weapons",
+  "armors",
+  "enemies",
+  "states",
+  "troops",
+  "animations"
+]
    • addedInput schema / properties / force
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Delete even though something still references it (default false)",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  2. Addedv5.8.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false), it discloses that the change is written immediately, not undoable, that IDs are never reused, that references are never cleaned up automatically, and that the delete is refused while references exist. It also enumerates every reference category checked and lists the result shape on forced deletes. This is unusually rich behavioral context.

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 description is front-loaded with the DESTRUCTIVE warning and every sentence carries substantive information with no filler. However, it is a single dense paragraph for a complex topic, and itemizing the reference list or options would have improved scanability.

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?

With no output schema, the description supplies the return shape ('Returns the deleted object') and the error behavior ('fails with an error if the ID does not exist'), and it covers the auth/safety profile through both annotations and explicit warnings. An agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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 the baseline is 3. The description mostly restates schema semantics for id, force, and entity, and it introduces a 'dryRun:true' parameter that does not appear anywhere in the input schema, which is a potential inconsistency rather than added clarity.

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 states a precise verb and resource ('delete a database entry'), names the mechanism ('nulling it out in its data file'), and lists the exact supported entity types. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like update_database_entry and create_database_entry without the agent needing to open any schema.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It gives explicit conditions for use and non-use: refusal while references exist, fixing references first, using dryRun to preview, or force to override. It also names hard exclusions (never skill 1/2 or state 1). It does not, however, direct the agent to any sibling tool as an alternative, which keeps it short of a 5.

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