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

RPG Maker MZ Authoring MCP

by NixonMSilva
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

update map event

update_map_event

Update a map event's name, note, and x/y position with a preview-first change set, then apply the validated edits to commit them.

Instructions

Update event metadata: name, note, x, y. Pages are edited with the page/logic tools.

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": {
      "mapId": "<mapId>",
      "eventId": "<eventId>"
    },
    "name": "update_map_event"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
xNo
yNo
nameNo
noteNo
applyNoCommit right after a successful preview (non-destructive operations only; needs --allow-write; warnings also need acknowledgeWarnings). Default false = preview only.
mapIdYesMap ID (from list_maps)
eventIdYesMap event ID
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

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only but non-destructive and non-idempotent; the description adds genuinely new behavior: the call is preview-first and returns a change set (semantic + native diff, validation) unless apply=true. That disclosure of the default dry-run posture and return shape is the most valuable thing an agent needs and is not derivable from the annotations. It omits the --allow-write gate and warning-acknowledgement flow, which live only in the schema.

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?

Two short paragraphs with zero filler: the field scope and the page-editing boundary come first, then the preview/apply contract. Every sentence carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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 10-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the critical unknown (dry-run by default, returns a diff plus validation) and the commit escape hatch. It is thin on the write-permission prerequisite and on what happens to unspecified fields, which keeps it from a 5.

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

Parameters3/5

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

At 60% schema coverage, the schema already documents apply, allowScript, acknowledgeWarnings, mapId and eventId, and the description reinforces only the apply/preview workflow. The four fields it lists (name, note, x, y) are self-evident from the schema, so added meaning beyond structured data is modest and the warning-acknowledgement path is never explained in prose.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Update event metadata') and enumerates the mutable fields (name, note, x, y), so an agent knows exactly what this touches. It also scopes the tool away from page editing ('Pages are edited with the page/logic tools'), though it does not name the closest sibling, update_common_event, to disambiguate the two.

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?

It gives clear routing guidance for the page-vs-metadata split and a concrete when-to-commit rule ('Pass apply=true to commit immediately when the preview is clean'), which is real usage context. It stops short of exclusions for the event-type siblings (update_common_event, update_event_page_settings), leaving that boundary to inference.

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