Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
RPG Maker MZ Authoring MCP

RPG Maker MZ Authoring MCP

by NixonMSilva
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Analyze event flow

analyze_event_flow
Read-onlyIdempotent

Detect unreachable blocks, contradicted conditions, exitless loops, non-ending autorun pages, shadowed pages, unused switches, and common event call cycles in RPG Maker MZ event flows.

Instructions

Heuristic logic analysis (labelled as heuristics, never auto-fixed): unreachable blocks, contradicted/redundant conditions, loops without exit, autorun pages that never end, shadowed pages, unused self switches, switches set but never read on the map, common event call cycles.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "analyze_event_flow"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
mapIdNoMap ID (map event page)
scopeNo
eventIdNoEvent ID (map event page)
troopIdNoTroop ID (battle event page)
pageIndexNoZERO-based page index (map event or troop page)
commonEventIdNoCommon event ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description usefully adds that results are heuristic and never auto-fixed, which is real behavioral context beyond annotations, but it says nothing about limiting to a scope, cost of analysis, or output shape.

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?

A single dense sentence with the key qualifier ('heuristics, never auto-fixed') front-loaded. The comma-separated list of checks is efficient, though it is a raw enumeration rather than grouped or prioritized by scope.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a read-only six-parameter analysis tool with strong annotation coverage and no output schema, the description conveys what class of findings to expect, which is the main thing an agent needs. Remaining gaps are output formatting and scope-to-check mapping, which are moderate rather than blocking.

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 83%, so parameter meaning is largely already documented (mapId, eventId, troopId, pageIndex, commonEventId, plus a scope enum). The description adds no mapping between the listed checks and which scope ('page'/'event'/'map') surfaces them, which is the one piece of semantics the schema cannot convey.

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 names a specific analysis verb and enumerates concrete findings (unreachable blocks, contradicted conditions, loops without exit, shadowed pages, unused switches). It is clearly a read-only heuristic analyzer, distinguishable from mutators like replace_event_logic or validate_event_page, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites, and no named alternative tool. The parenthetical 'labelled as heuristics, never auto-fixed' implies it is a diagnostic pre-check before applying changes, but the agent must infer that routing on its own.

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