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

RPG Maker MZ Authoring MCP

by NixonMSilva
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

List plugins

list_plugins
Read-onlyIdempotent

Lists RPG Maker MZ plugins from js/plugins.js with enabled status and parsed parameters, letting you filter to enabled plugins without executing plugin code.

Instructions

Plugins from js/plugins.js with status and parameters (parsed as data; plugin code is never executed).

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_plugins"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
enabledOnlyNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds a meaningful safety trait beyond annotations: plugin code is parsed as data and never executed, which tells the agent this is safe static inspection.

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 compact sentence with no filler, and the safety caveat is included efficiently. It is slightly fragment-like rather than front-loaded with an explicit verb, but it remains clear.

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 simple read-only list tool with rich annotations, the description covers source and execution safety. It is incomplete on the sole parameter's filtering behavior and does not describe the returned status/parameter structure, though no output schema exists to carry that.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The only parameter, enabledOnly, has 0% schema description coverage and is not mentioned in the description. The description does not explain that the boolean filters to enabled plugins, so it adds no meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 identifies the resource (plugins) and source file (js/plugins.js) and says the result includes status and parameters. It does not use an explicit list verb or name a sibling alternative, but the title/name and content make the operation clear.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus other list_* tools, and the enabledOnly filter is not mentioned as a usage condition. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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