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

RPG Maker MZ Authoring MCP

by NixonMSilva
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

database create record

database_create_record

Create a new RPG Maker MZ database record with the next ID, optionally from a template with field and collection overrides. Preview the validated change set, then commit to get the new ID.

Instructions

Create a database record with the next ID (max+1). Optionally start from a template (database_list_templates) and override fields (patch paths, e.g. "damage.formula"), collections (traits/effects/learnings/actions/dropItems/members) and noteTags. Returns the new ID.

Preview-first: returns a change set (normalized + native diff, validation incl. reverse references). 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": {
      "category": "<category>",
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "database_create_record"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idNoOnly to reuse a null slot or (with overwriteBlank) an unreferenced blank slot
nameYes
applyNoCommit right after a successful preview (non-destructive operations only; needs --allow-write; warnings also need acknowledgeWarnings). Default false = preview only.
fieldsNo
categoryYesDatabase category
noteTagsNo
templateNo
allowScriptNotrue ONLY if the user explicitly asked to insert JavaScript (script commands, script conditions/operands, route scripts).
collectionsNo
descriptionNoOptional description stored in the transaction log
overwriteBlankNo
templateParamsNo
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

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, openWorld=false; the description goes well beyond them by disclosing the dry-run-by-default model, the contents of the change set (normalized + native diff, validation including reverse references), and the commit condition. The max+1 ID rule also explains the non-idempotent behavior hinted at by annotations. It does not mention failure modes or what happens on validation errors during apply.

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?

Two short paragraphs, purpose first, workflow second, with no filler sentences. The dense parenthetical listing three override targets is slightly compressed but still readable. Nothing is wasted, though the field-patch example could be separated for scannability.

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 13-parameter mutation tool with nested objects and no output schema, the definition covers the return value (new ID), the preview/commit cycle, and the main override targets. What is missing is the relationship between template and templateParams, and any guidance on category-specific constraints, which matters given the 14-value enum.

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 46% for 13 parameters, so the description must carry weight, and it does add real meaning for the important ones: template usage, patch-path syntax for `fields` ('damage.formula'), the enumerated `collections` keys, and apply/noteTags. However, templateParams, allowScript, overwriteBlank, acknowledgeWarnings and the id-reuse rule are left to the schema, so several parameters get no added context.

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 opening sentence gives a specific verb and resource plus the ID-assignment rule ('Create a database record with the next ID (max+1)'), which immediately separates it from update/duplicate siblings. It also names what is created and what is returned. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with database_duplicate_record or database_update_record, so sibling differentiation is only partial.

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/apply workflow is spelled out: default is a change set, and apply=true commits when the preview is clean. It also points at database_list_templates as the way to start from a template. It does not say when to prefer this over duplicate_record or when not to use it (e.g., for existing records), leaving a modest gap.

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