Skip to main content
Glama
RPG Maker MZ Authoring MCP

RPG Maker MZ Authoring MCP

by NixonMSilva

Transaction log

list_transactions
Read-onlyIdempotent

Lists committed and failed write transactions with changed files, revisions, and backup locations, newest first to help audit edits and support safe rollback.

Instructions

Committed (and failed) write transactions with changed files, revisions and backup locations, newest first.

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_transactions"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world scope, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine value by disclosing that failed transactions are included and that results are newest-first with backup locations, but it says nothing about pagination, result volume, or how far back history goes.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler; the most decision-relevant facts (write transactions, includes failures, newest first, what fields are returned) all appear before any detail.

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 simple single-parameter list tool with no output schema and strong read-only annotations, the description covers what the tool returns and its ordering well. The one real gap is the undocumented limit parameter, which is the only lever an agent has to control the call.

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% for the single limit parameter, and the description never mentions it at all — not its default, its 500 maximum, nor why the schema permits large negative values (presumably meaning 'no limit'). Only the 'newest first' ordering is conveyed, which is not a parameter behavior.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: lists write transactions, explicitly including both committed and failed ones, with changed files, revisions and backup locations, in newest-first order. An agent can tell this is the audit/history view rather than a rollback action, though it never names the sibling rollback_transaction.

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 only implied by the content described (a transaction history log); there is no explicit statement of when to call this versus rollback_transaction or list_pending_changes, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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