Skip to main content
Glama
RPG Maker MZ Authoring MCP

RPG Maker MZ Authoring MCP

by NixonMSilva

Pending change sets

list_pending_changes
Read-onlyIdempotent

Lists previewed change sets that are not yet applied, so you can review pending edits before committing them. Entries expire after 1 hour.

Instructions

Change sets previewed but not yet applied (expire after 1 hour).

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_pending_changes"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely new behavioral trait not present in annotations: pending change sets expire after one hour. It does not say what expiry means for the underlying data (silent loss vs. auto-discard), which is the one missing detail.

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 short sentence that front-loads the scope and appends the operationally important TTL. No filler, no restatement of the title.

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?

With no output schema and no parameters, the description is the only source of return-value information, and it does not say what a listed change set contains (identifiers usable with get_change_set or apply_changes, timestamps, affected objects). For a tool whose output feeds apply/discard siblings, that is a meaningful gap despite the otherwise adequate scope statement.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the schema baseline of 4 applies and there is no parameter meaning for the description to supply. Nothing is misleading or missing on this dimension.

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 defines the resource precisely as 'change sets previewed but not yet applied,' which lets an agent distinguish pending previews from applied changes and from the preview/apply siblings. It stops short of naming a sibling such as get_change_set or preview_changes, so differentiation is inferential rather than explicit.

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?

Usage is implied: this is the way to see what is staged before applying or discarding it, and the one-hour expiry signals urgency. There is no explicit statement of when to use this versus get_change_set, preview_changes, apply_changes, or discard_changes, so the agent must infer the workflow position.

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