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

RPG Maker MZ Authoring MCP

by NixonMSilva
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

database edit note

database_edit_note

Edit a database record's note by setting or removing tags or replacing text while preserving unrelated content. Preview changes with validation before committing to keep RPG Maker MZ edits safe and reversible.

Instructions

Edit a record's note: {op:"set_tag", tag, value?} (value omitted = flag tag ), {op:"remove_tag", tag}, or {op:"replace", note}. Unrelated tags and text are preserved exactly.

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>",
      "id": "<id>",
      "op": "<op>"
    },
    "name": "database_edit_note"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes
opYes
tagNo
noteNo
applyNoCommit right after a successful preview (non-destructive operations only; needs --allow-write; warnings also need acknowledgeWarnings). Default false = preview only.
valueNo
categoryYesDatabase category
allowScriptNotrue ONLY if the user explicitly asked to insert JavaScript (script commands, script conditions/operands, route scripts).
descriptionNoOptional description stored in the transaction log
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

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark this as a non-destructive, non-idempotent write, and the description adds substantial behavior: preview-first default, a returned change set with normalized and native diff, validation including reverse references, and the guarantee that unrelated tags and text are preserved. It does not restate that apply needs write permission or warning acknowledgement, though those details live in the schema descriptions.

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 dense, front-loaded paragraphs with zero filler. The inline brace notation is compact but slightly telegraphic and requires careful reading.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the critical workflow (preview then apply) and the operation semantics an agent needs to call it correctly. The remaining parameters are documented in the schema, so no blocking gap remains.

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?

With 50% schema coverage across 10 parameters, the description still substantially compensates: it defines which of tag/value/note belong to each op and the non-obvious rule that omitting value flags the tag as <Tag>. It leaves category, allowScript, description, and acknowledgeWarnings to 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource (edit a record's note) and enumerates the three supported operations with their exact parameter shapes, so an agent can distinguish it from update_record or apply_changes 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?

It clearly explains operation selection (set_tag vs remove_tag vs replace) and the preview-first vs apply=true workflow with the condition 'when the preview is clean'. It does not name sibling tools as alternatives or state when not to use this tool.

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