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

RPG Maker MZ Authoring MCP

by NixonMSilva
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

update common event

update_common_event

Update a common event's name, trigger, or condition switch with a preview-first change set; pass apply=true to commit validated edits.

Instructions

Update a common event's name, trigger (none|autorun|parallel) or condition switchId. Its command list is edited with the logic tools ({commonEventId}).

Preview-first: returns a change set (semantic + native diff, validation). Pass apply=true to commit immediately when the preview is clean.

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": {
      "commonEventId": "<commonEventId>"
    },
    "name": "update_common_event"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNo
applyNoCommit right after a successful preview (non-destructive operations only; needs --allow-write; warnings also need acknowledgeWarnings). Default false = preview only.
triggerNo
switchIdNo
allowScriptNotrue ONLY if the user explicitly asked to insert JavaScript (script commands, script conditions/operands, route scripts).
descriptionNoOptional description stored in the transaction log
commonEventIdYesCommon event ID
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

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior: a preview-first change set containing semantic and native diffs plus validation, and that apply=true commits. It does not mention the --allow-write / acknowledgeWarnings gating or what happens to unchanged fields, so it adds some but not rich context.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the editable fields and followed by the preview/commit contract. The '({commonEventId})' placeholder in the logic-tools reference is slightly awkward but costs little.

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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the important parts: what can be changed, what the call returns (a change set with diff and validation), and how to commit. Gaps remain around the optional log description, warning acknowledgement flow, and the write-flag requirement, but nothing critical to a correct invocation is missing.

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 63%, and the description compensates meaningfully by supplying the trigger enum values (none|autorun|parallel) that the schema leaves as a bare string|number union. It also clarifies the apply parameter's preview-vs-commit meaning. It says nothing about allowScript, acknowledgeWarnings, or description, which the schema does document, so it stops short of full coverage.

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 and resource plus the exact updatable fields (name, trigger, switchId) and explicitly scopes the command list away to the logic tools. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_event_logic or append_event_blocks, though it never names a concrete alternative tool.

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?

Gives a clear routing rule: metadata edits go here, command-list edits go to the logic tools. It also explains the preview-vs-commit flow with apply=true, so an agent knows the default is a dry run. No explicit 'do not use when' exclusions, which keeps it at 4 rather than 5.

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