Skip to main content
Glama
Redseb
by Redseb

delete_record

Delete an RPG Maker MZ database record by nulling its slot, checking for dangling references and refusing if any exist. Use force to override or dryRun to preview.

Instructions

Delete one database record (actor, class, skill, item, weapon, armor, enemy, troop, state, or common_event) by nulling its slot — ids never shift, so nothing else is renumbered. Reports every reference the deletion would leave dangling (an actor's class, a troop member, a Change Items / Shop / Battle Processing command, a skill effect, the starting party, …; found with the same audit validate_references runs, see coverage in the response) and REFUSES, writing nothing, when there are any — pass force: true to delete anyway, or dryRun: true to preview the references without throwing. Deleting skill 1 (Attack), skill 2 (Guard) or state 1 (Knockout) is always reported, since the engine hard-codes them. Returns { type, deleted: { id, name }, referenceCount, references[], coverage }.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesThe id of the record to delete
typeYesWhich database table: actor, class, skill, item, weapon, armor, enemy, troop, state, or common_event
forceNoWrite even if validation finds structural problems (wrong parameter count, unterminated command list). Off by default: such a write is refused and nothing is written. Advisory warnings never block regardless.
dryRunNoPreview only: return a diff of what would change without writing to disk.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.4.0

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses the slot-nulling write strategy (ids never shift, nothing renumbered), the refusal-on-references semantics, the hard-coded skill/state exceptions, and the exact response shape. This is unusually rich behavioral context for a mutation tool.

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 and the key constraint (dangling references) are front-loaded ahead of the escape hatches and return shape. It is dense with parentheticals but every clause carries actionable information, so it is efficient rather than padded.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description documents the return payload (type, deleted, referenceCount, references[], coverage) and covers the failure mode, so an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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 meaning beyond the schema by tying force/dryRun to the reference-refusal flow (dryRun previews refs 'without throwing') and clarifying that advisory warnings never block.

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?

States a precise verb (delete) and resource (one database record) and enumerates the ten affected tables, so an agent immediately knows the scope. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like delete_map, delete_map_event, or validate_references.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly describes the gating behavior (refuses on dangling references), the escape hatches (force: true to delete anyway, dryRun: true to preview), and routes to the related audit used by validate_references. The when-to-use and when-it-will-fail conditions are fully spelled out.

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