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

RPG Maker MZ Authoring MCP

by NixonMSilva
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Resolve database reference

database_resolve_reference
Read-onlyIdempotent

Validate a database category and ID, or resolve a record by name before authoring events that reference it; ask the user when matches are ambiguous.

Instructions

Validate a category+ID, or find a record by name (exact matches first, then partial candidates). Use before authoring events that reference database records; ask the user when ambiguous.

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": "database_resolve_reference"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idNo
nameNo
categoryYesDatabase category

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral detail beyond that: a two-phase matching strategy with exact matches ranked before partial candidates, and a fallback protocol for ambiguous results. It does not say what the response looks like when several partial candidates tie or what happens on an invalid ID, leaving some gaps.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the core capability stated first and the usage/ambiguity rule second. Every clause carries operational information.

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?

With three simple parameters, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description covers the essential decision points an agent needs. The remaining gap is the unresolved id-vs-name precedence rule and the shape of a candidate result, which matters because the tool explicitly returns 'candidates'.

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 only 33%, and only 'category' carries an inline description, so the description does meaningful work by implying that 'id' is validated against 'category' and that 'name' drives the fuzzy lookup path. However, the mutual exclusivity of id vs. name is never stated, and no constraints on the name string (case sensitivity, minimum length) are added. Baseline 3 given partial compensation for the coverage gap.

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 two concrete operations on a specific resource: validating a category+ID pair and finding a record by name. The parenthetical '(exact matches first, then partial candidates)' makes the lookup mode distinguishable from a plain record fetch or category validator. It stops short of naming which sibling to prefer for full search, but the verb+resource is unambiguous.

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 gives an explicit trigger ('use before authoring events that reference database records') and an explicit disambiguation policy ('ask the user when ambiguous'). What is missing is any when-not guidance or a pointer to an alternative when the caller already knows the exact record and simply wants to read it.

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