Skip to main content
Glama
RPG Maker MZ Authoring MCP

RPG Maker MZ Authoring MCP

by NixonMSilva

insert event blocks

insert_event_blocks

Insert event blocks at a chosen position—before/after a block or inside a branch—with revision checks and preview-first validation before committing.

Instructions

Insert blocks at a position (before/after a block id, or into a branch of a container). Requires the list revision.

Preview-first: returns a change set (semantic + native diff, validation). 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": {
      "revision": "<revision>",
      "position": "<position>",
      "blocks": "<blocks>"
    },
    "name": "insert_event_blocks"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
applyNoCommit right after a successful preview (non-destructive operations only; needs --allow-write; warnings also need acknowledgeWarnings). Default false = preview only.
mapIdNoMap ID (map event page target)
blocksYesEvent IR blocks (see resource rpgmz://docs/event-ir or get_event_ir_reference)
eventIdNoMap event ID (map event page target)
troopIdNoTroop ID (troop battle page target)
positionYesWhere to insert: {before:id} | {after:id} | {parentId, branch, index}. Inserting into the "else" branch of a conditional without one creates it.
revisionYesRevision token of the command list from get_event_logic / get_event_page (rejects stale block ids)
pageIndexNoZERO-based page index (map event or troop page)
allowScriptNotrue ONLY if the user explicitly asked to insert JavaScript (script commands, script conditions/operands, route scripts).
descriptionNoOptional description stored in the transaction log
commonEventIdNoCommon event ID (common event target)
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

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (not read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent), and the description adds what the annotations cannot: the call returns a change set with semantic and native diff plus validation, and calling with revision guards against stale block ids. It does not mention the write-permission gating, but the schema parameter descriptions carry that.

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 short paragraphs, front-loaded with the operation and its positioning forms, then the preview/apply contract. Every sentence carries information and nothing is repeated from the schema verbatim.

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 12-parameter mutation tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description covers what an agent most needs: positioning semantics, the revision precondition, and the preview-versus-commit behavior. The remaining detail (target selection via mapId/troopId/commonEventId, warning acknowledgement) lives in the schema descriptions, which are complete.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning: it explains the three positional shapes of `position` and discloses that inserting into an 'else' branch of a conditional without one creates that branch — a side effect not present in the schema. The revision token's role in rejecting stale ids is also clarified in prose.

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 and resource ('Insert blocks') and immediately enumerates the supported insertion modes (before/after a block id, or into a container branch), which an agent can map onto the `position` object. It does not distinguish itself from `append_event_blocks` or `replace_event_block`, so differentiation is left to the caller.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The preview-first workflow and the `apply=true` opt-in give real guidance on how to invoke it safely, and the revision requirement is stated. However, there is no explicit 'use this instead of append_event_blocks / replace_event_block when...' routing, so the choice among sibling mutation tools is implied rather than stated.

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