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

RPG Maker MZ Authoring MCP

by NixonMSilva
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Get change set

get_change_set
Read-onlyIdempotent

Preview a pending change set by ID, including diffs and diagnostics, so you can review edits before applying them.

Instructions

Full preview (diffs, diagnostics) of a pending change set.

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": "get_change_set"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
changeSetIdYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds that the result includes diffs and diagnostics, which is useful return-content context beyond the annotations, but it says nothing about behavior with an invalid or already-applied changeSetId, or about output size.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the parenthetical efficiently lists the preview payload. It is arguably over-terse for the gaps it leaves, but nothing in it is wasted.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with no output schema, an undocumented sole parameter, and a workflow role that is only implied, one short sentence is thin. An agent knows roughly what it gets back but not how to obtain the ID or when in the preview-then-apply sequence to invoke it.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% for the single required parameter, so the description must compensate and does not. It never explains where a changeSetId comes from, its format, or what happens if it refers to a non-pending set.

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 a specific verb (preview) and resource (a pending change set) and even enumerates what the preview contains (diffs, diagnostics). It tells the agent this is a read-only inspection of changes rather than the application of them, though it never names the sibling it complements (apply_changes / database_apply_changes).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The word "pending" faintly implies this runs before applying changes, but the agent is never told to call this before apply_changes or how it differs from database_compare_records.

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