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

RPG Maker MZ Authoring MCP

by NixonMSilva
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Apply change set

apply_event_changes
Destructive

Commit a previewed change set by rechecking file revisions, backing up originals, writing atomically, and rolling back on failure to keep RPG Maker MZ edits safe.

Instructions

Commit a previously previewed change set. Re-checks file revisions (rejects stale previews), backs up originals, writes atomically, and rolls back on failure. Requires --allow-write. (Alias of apply_changes; any change set id is accepted.)

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": {
      "changeSetId": "<changeSetId>"
    },
    "name": "apply_event_changes"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
confirmNoFor destructive change sets: repeat the changeSetId to confirm
changeSetIdYes
acknowledgeWarningsNoRequired when the change set has warnings

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description goes well beyond them: revision re-checking, stale-preview rejection, backup of originals, atomic write, and rollback on failure. The only gaps are that the confirmation/warning acknowledgement gate is only implied via the schema, and there is no mention of what the tool returns.

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?

Three compact sentences with the action front-loaded, followed by the behavioral guarantees, the permission requirement, and the alias note. Zero filler.

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 destructive multi-step mutation with no output schema, the description covers preconditions, side effects, and failure recovery well. It leaves the success response and the consequences of a failed rollback unstated, which would be the remaining piece an agent might want.

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 coverage is 67% with both confirm and acknowledgeWarnings already documented, and changeSetId carries no schema description. The parenthetical "any change set id is accepted" does add non-obvious meaning about changeSetId, but the other two parameters get no elaboration beyond the schema.

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?

Specific verb+resource ("Commit a previously previewed change set") that clearly separates this from preview_event_changes and get_change_set, and it explicitly declares the alias relationship with apply_changes. An agent can place it in the workflow 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?

"Previously previewed change set" establishes the precondition that a preview must exist, and "Requires --allow-write" flags the gating requirement. It doesn't state whether to prefer this or apply_changes given the alias, leaving that choice implicit.

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