Skip to main content
Glama
Redseb

rpgmaker-mz-mcp

by Redseb
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

build_show_text

Generate Show Text event commands for RPG Maker MZ dialogue, with face image, window position, background, and speaker name. Auto word-wrap prevents text cutoff at window edges.

Instructions

Build a Show Text event-command sequence (101 setup + one 401 line per text line) for insertion via insert_event_commands. Supports face image (from list_assets("faces")), window background/position, and the MZ name-box speaker. MZ does NOT word-wrap: keep each line under ~55 chars (~38 with a face) or it is cut off at the window edge (warned, never blocked) — or pass wrap: true to word-wrap automatically to that same width (escape codes like \C[n] do not count) and split into as many 4-line message boxes as needed. Read-only: returns { commands, warnings? }, writes nothing.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
wrapNoAuto word-wrap to the message-window width (the same width the line-length warning uses) and split into 4-line boxes. true/"soft" reflows all lines as one paragraph; "hard" keeps each entry (and \n) as a forced line break. Default off (one line per entry, verbatim).
linesYesMessage lines (one entry per visual line)
indentNoIndentation level (default 0)
faceNameNoFace image basename ("" = none, default)
positionNoWindow position (default bottom)
faceIndexNoFace index 0–7 in the sheet (default 0)
backgroundNoWindow background (default window)
speakerNameNoMZ name-box speaker name (default "")

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.4.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / wrap
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    {
+      "enum": [
+        "soft",
+        "hard"
+      ],
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  ],
+  "description": "Auto word-wrap to the message-window width (the same width the line-length warning uses) and split into 4-line boxes. true/\"soft\" reflows all lines as one paragraph; \"hard\" keeps each entry (and \\n) as a forced line break. Default off (one line per entry, verbatim)."
+}
  2. First observedv1.2.0

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it states "Read-only", "writes nothing", and gives the return shape { commands, warnings? }. It also discloses the non-blocking validation behavior (line overflow is "warned, never blocked"), which an agent needs to know before relying on warnings.

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?

It is front-loaded with purpose and every sentence carries actionable detail, but the wrap explanation is packed into one long clause-heavy passage that would read better as a distinct sub-point. Dense yet largely waste-free.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For an 8-parameter event-command builder with no output schema, the description covers the essential gaps: the generated structure, insertion target, line-width constraints, wrap semantics, face source, and return/validation behavior. An agent has what it needs to call it correctly.

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 is 3, but the description adds real value: it explains where face images come from (list_assets("faces")), clarifies the wrap modes and that escape codes like \C[n] don't count toward width, and ties the width constant to the line-length warning. That extra semantic context lifts it above baseline.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description opens with a precise verb+resource ("Build a Show Text event-command sequence") and even specifies the internal structure it produces (101 setup + one 401 line per text line). Naming insert_event_commands as the consumer clearly distinguishes it from siblings like build_show_choices or add_event_command.

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 establishes the workflow context — build here, then insert via insert_event_commands — and gives concrete usage rules (keep lines under ~55/~38 chars or pass wrap). However, it never explicitly contrasts when to choose this tool versus a sibling builder such as build_show_choices or build_flow_command, so it stops short of full alternative guidance.

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