Skip to main content
Glama
RPG Maker MZ Authoring MCP

RPG Maker MZ Authoring MCP

by NixonMSilva

List configured projects

list_projects
Read-onlyIdempotent

Lists projects configured at server start and shows which selected project all tools use, so you can verify the active workspace before editing.

Instructions

Projects configured at server start (--project). The selected one is used by all tools.

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_projects"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: projects are fixed at server start (so the result is static and cannot be mutated at runtime) and the selected project scopes every other tool. It stops short of explaining how the selection is made or identified.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler, and the global-scope note is placed second where it belongs. The first sentence is a fragment rather than a statement, which costs a little clarity but not much length.

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, the description should say roughly what comes back (names, ids) and how to tell which project is currently selected — it does neither. It is otherwise adequate for a zero-parameter read, conveying the static configuration source and cross-tool scope.

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, which is the baseline-4 case. The description correctly implies no input is required and explains where the listed data originates (the --project server flag).

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The name and title say "list projects", but the description itself is a noun-phrase fragment ("Projects configured at server start (--project)") with no verb, so it never explicitly states that it returns a list. It does add the useful detail that projects come from a server-start flag, but an agent must infer the listing action from the name and title rather than the prose.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of any alternative tool. The clause "The selected one is used by all tools" hints that project selection matters globally, but the description never says how to view or change that selection, leaving the agent to guess.

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