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

RPG Maker MZ Authoring MCP

by NixonMSilva
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Preview event changes (batch)

preview_event_changes

Preview multiple event and database operations as one atomic change set, validate the resulting project state, and write nothing until changes are applied.

Instructions

Preview several operations as ONE atomic change set (event-focused; any registered operation is accepted, so events and database records can be changed together). The whole resulting project state is validated; nothing is written until apply_changes. Operations: create_map_event, update_map_event, delete_map_event, create_event_page, clone_event_page, delete_event_page, update_event_page_settings, reorder_event_pages, update_common_event, create_event_from_template, append_event_blocks, insert_event_blocks, replace_event_block, remove_event_block, move_event_block, replace_event_logic, database_create_record, database_update_record, database_duplicate_record, database_delete_record, database_edit_collection, database_edit_note, database_set_class_curve.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "operations": "<operations>"
    },
    "name": "preview_event_changes"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
applyNoCommit right after a successful preview (non-destructive operations only; needs --allow-write; warnings also need acknowledgeWarnings). Default false = preview only.
operationsYesOperations applied in order to one staged workspace
allowScriptNotrue ONLY if the user explicitly asked to insert JavaScript (script commands, script conditions/operands, route scripts).
descriptionNoOptional description stored in the transaction log
acknowledgeWarningsNoAccept validation warnings when apply=true. Review them with the user first.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the sparse annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=false), the description discloses real behavior: operations are staged into one atomic workspace, the entire resulting project state is validated, and no write occurs until apply_changes. That reconciles the non-read-only hint with the preview semantics. Gaps remain around what validation failure returns and whether staged previews persist or expire.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and the change-set/validation semantics come before the operation catalog. The 23-item operation list is a long wall of text, but it arguably earns its place because `op` is an open string field whose valid values would otherwise be undiscoverable.

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 complex atomic batch tool with no output schema, the definition never hints at what a preview returns — validation errors, warnings, a diff, or a transaction handle. It implies validation happens but leaves the agent unable to anticipate result shape or whether a preview must precede apply_changes. Parameters themselves are fully covered.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline would be 3, but the description adds meaning the schema lacks: `op` is documented in the schema only as "e.g. create_map_event...", whereas the description enumerates the full accepted operation set. This is a real addition over structured data rather than a restatement.

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 opening clause names a specific verb and resource ("Preview several operations as ONE atomic change set") and follows with an exhaustive list of accepted operation names, so an agent knows exactly what it can batch. It also states the scope is "event-focused" while simultaneously accepting any registered operation. What it never does is distinguish itself from the sibling `preview_changes` or `database_preview_changes`, which is the one thing an agent still has to guess.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

"nothing is written until apply_changes" and the default-false `apply` parameter give a clear preview-then-commit workflow, which is genuine when-to-use guidance. There is no explicit exclusion such as "use preview_changes instead when you only touch database records", so the routing decision against the other preview siblings is left implicit.

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