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

RPG Maker MZ Authoring MCP

by NixonMSilva
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Map summary

get_map_summary
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieves map metadata (size, tileset, display name, note) and summaries of all events for a given map ID, enabling quick inspection of RPG Maker MZ map contents.

Instructions

Map metadata (size, tileset, display name, note) and a summary of every event.

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": {
      "mapId": "<mapId>"
    },
    "name": "get_map_summary"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
mapIdYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds useful context by listing what metadata and event summary are returned, but says nothing about pagination, event-summary limits, or whether large maps truncate.

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?

A single tightly written sentence that front-loads the returned metadata and then the event summary. There is no redundant or filler wording.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains the return contents. However, it leaves the required mapId parameter entirely unexplained and gives no behavioral context beyond what the annotations already provide.

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?

The single mapId parameter has 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it. It does not explain that mapId identifies the map, whether unknown IDs error, or what range is valid, so the low-coverage parameter remains undocumented.

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 gives a specific resource and enumerates the metadata returned (size, tileset, display name, note) plus an event summary. It is clear enough to distinguish from get_map_event and get_map_passability, though it lacks an explicit verb.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as get_map_event or get_map_passability, nor any stated preconditions. The agent must infer usage entirely from the return description.

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