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

RPG Maker MZ Authoring MCP

by NixonMSilva
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Tile info

get_tile_info
Read-onlyIdempotent

Check map cell details—tile IDs, blocked sides, exits, events, reachability, and free status—before placing NPCs or transfer destinations.

Instructions

Facts about one or more cells: tile ids per layer (sheet, autotile kind/shape, flags), blocked sides, exits, shadow, region, terrain tag, ladder/bush/counter/damage, events on it, reachability, and free (exit + no event + reachable): use it to check spots before placing NPCs or transfer destinations.

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_tile_info"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
xNo
yNo
fromNoReachability origin (default: player start or first transfer arrival)
mapIdYes
assumeNoGame state used to pick each event's active page. Default: all switches/self switches OFF, variables 0, no items.
positionsNoSeveral cells at once (instead of x/y)
ignoreEventsNoIgnore events (tiles only). Default false: blocking events count as obstacles.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful semantics by defining the computed `free` field as 'exit + no event + reachable', which an agent cannot infer from the schema alone, but says nothing about cost, result shape, or how default assumptions affect the answer beyond what the schema already states.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the returned facts and closes with the actionable use case; every clause maps to actual output data. It is somewhat list-like and could be broken for scanability, but no sentence is wasted.

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 read-only inspection tool with no output schema, the description enumerates the returned fields well enough to know what a call yields, including the non-obvious `free` derivation. Remaining gaps (response shape, behavior when both x/y and positions are supplied) are minor and partly covered by the schema.

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 description coverage is 57% with seven parameters including nested `from`, `assume`, and `positions`; the schema already documents those. The description only implies the x/y-versus-positions duality via 'one or more cells' and adds no meaning about reachability origin or the assume defaults, so it does not compensate 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?

States a specific verb/resource pair ('Facts about one or more cells') and enumerates the concrete data returned: tile ids per layer, blocked sides, exits, shadow, region, terrain tag, events, reachability, and the derived `free` flag. It is clearly distinct from passability-oriented siblings, though it does not name a specific alternative.

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?

Gives a concrete decision context: 'use it to check spots before placing NPCs or transfer destinations,' which tells the agent when this tool is the right pick. It stops short of naming when-not to use it or which sibling to prefer for overlapping questions such as map-wide passability.

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