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

RPG Maker MZ Authoring MCP

by NixonMSilva
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

List maps

list_maps
Read-onlyIdempotent

Enumerates project maps with IDs, names, parent tree, and order so you can find and reference maps by ID instead of display name.

Instructions

Enumerate maps from MapInfos.json (IDs, names, tree parent and order). Map files are resolved by ID, never by display name.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_maps"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
parentIdNo
nameContainsNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the data comes from MapInfos.json, the returned fields, and the important invariant that map files are resolved by ID rather than display name. It does not mention ordering guarantees or pagination, keeping it short of a 5.

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, front-loaded with the core action and return fields, followed by one high-value invariant. No filler or repetition.

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?

The return shape is sketched (IDs, names, parent, order) and no output schema exists, which is adequate. However, with two undocumented filter parameters at 0% schema coverage, the description leaves the main behavioral unknown — how filtering works — unaddressed.

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% and neither parameter (parentId, nameContains) is documented in the schema. The description never explains that parentId filters by tree parent or that nameContains does substring matching, so an agent must guess the filter semantics entirely.

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?

Uses a specific verb ("Enumerate") plus resource ("maps") and names the backing source (MapInfos.json) along with the fields returned (IDs, names, tree parent, order). It is clearly distinct from event-oriented siblings such as list_map_events, though it never explicitly says so.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance versus alternatives is given. The only directive is a downstream usage rule — "Map files are resolved by ID, never by display name" — which implies this tool is the entry point for obtaining those IDs, but the agent must infer that.

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