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

RPG Maker MZ Authoring MCP

by NixonMSilva
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

append event blocks

append_event_blocks

Add event command blocks to the end of map pages, common events, or troop pages. Preview validation and diffs first, then apply when clean.

Instructions

Append Event IR blocks at the end of a command list (map page, common event or troop page). No revision needed.

Preview-first: returns a change set (semantic + native diff, validation). Pass apply=true to commit immediately when the preview is clean.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "blocks": "<blocks>"
    },
    "name": "append_event_blocks"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
applyNoCommit right after a successful preview (non-destructive operations only; needs --allow-write; warnings also need acknowledgeWarnings). Default false = preview only.
mapIdNoMap ID (map event page target)
blocksYesEvent IR blocks (see resource rpgmz://docs/event-ir or get_event_ir_reference)
eventIdNoMap event ID (map event page target)
troopIdNoTroop ID (troop battle page target)
pageIndexNoZERO-based page index (map event or troop page)
allowScriptNotrue ONLY if the user explicitly asked to insert JavaScript (script commands, script conditions/operands, route scripts).
descriptionNoOptional description stored in the transaction log
commonEventIdNoCommon event ID (common event target)
acknowledgeWarningsNoAccept validation warnings when apply=true. Review them with the user first.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only declare the mutation profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false); the description adds genuinely new behavior — that the default call is a dry-run returning a semantic + native diff with validation, and that apply=true commits only when the preview is clean. It does not restate the --allow-write or acknowledgeWarnings gating that lives in the schema, but those are already covered there.

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?

Four short sentences with the action and insertion point first, then the workflow and the commit switch. Every clause carries information an agent needs; nothing repeats the schema verbatim.

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 10-parameter mutating tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains the preview/apply loop and what a preview returns. The one real gap is that it never clarifies which target parameters combine (mapId + eventId + pageIndex vs troopId + pageIndex vs commonEventId), a choice the schema cannot enforce.

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%, so the baseline is 3, and the description earns a bump by explaining that apply commits 'right after a successful preview' and only when the preview is clean — a conditional the schema does not state. It also frames the target parameters as page-type variants (map / common event / troop), though it never says they are mutually exclusive.

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?

States a specific verb (append) and resource (Event IR blocks), and names the exact insertion point ('at the end of a command list'), which implicitly separates it from the sibling insert_event_blocks. The three target containers (map page, common event, troop page) are enumerated, so an agent knows the scope without opening the 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?

The preview-first default and the apply=true escape hatch give clear operating context, and 'No revision needed' rules out a concurrency workflow an agent might otherwise assume. It stops short of naming when to prefer insert_event_blocks, move_event_block, or replace_event_block instead, so there is no explicit exclusion.

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