Skip to main content
Glama
Xerolo44

RPG Maker MV MCP Server

by Xerolo44
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Audit project assets

audit_assets

Checks that every image and audio file referenced by an RPG Maker MV project exists on disk, optionally lists unreferenced files, and flags case mismatches that break cross-platform deployment.

Instructions

Checks that every image and audio file the project references exists on disk, and optionally lists files nothing references. Scanned references: Actors (characterName, faceName, battlerName); Enemies battlerName (img/enemies, or img/sv_enemies when System optSideView is on); Tilesets tilesetNames; Maps (parallaxName, bgm, bgs, battleback1Name, battleback2Name, event page images); event commands 101 (face), 132/133/139/140 (battle BGM, victory ME, defeat ME, vehicle BGM), 231 (picture), 241/245/249/250 (BGM/BGS/ME/SE), 283 (battle back), 284 (parallax), 322 (actor graphics) and 323 (vehicle image) in map events, common events and troops; System (title1Name, title2Name, battleback1Name, battleback2Name, titleBgm, battleBgm, victoryMe, defeatMe, gameoverMe, boat/ship/airship bgm, sounds). Anything else is listed under notScanned, so 'unused' can include files used only by plugins or scripts. Audio is satisfied by either an .ogg or an .m4a file. caseMismatch means the file exists only with different letter case: it works on Windows but breaks on Linux, macOS and web deployments. Each list is capped at 200 entries; truncated gives the omitted counts.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
includeUnusedNoAlso list asset files that no scanned reference uses.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.5.1

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses scanned vs. notScanned scope, audio extension rules, caseMismatch implications across platforms, and 200-entry truncation behavior with omitted counts.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core check and then supplies dense but relevant detail about scanned categories and caveats. The exhaustive enumeration is lengthy but earns its place for a complex audit operation; structure could be slightly more scannable.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must explain enough about return behavior, and it does: it names notScanned, caseMismatch, truncation, and omitted counts. For a one-parameter audit tool, this is complete enough for an agent to call and interpret 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. The description adds useful semantic context for includeUnused by explaining that unused results can include files referenced only by plugins or scripts, which helps interpret that parameter's output.

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 states a specific verb and resource: checks that every referenced image and audio file exists on disk, with an optional unused-file listing. It also enumerates scanned reference types, making the scope highly distinguishable from general asset-listing or reference-checking siblings.

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?

The tool's intended use is clear from the purpose and the includeUnused option, and it warns that 'unused' may include plugin- or script-only assets. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as check_references or validate_project, so it lacks full when-to-use/when-not guidance, but the context is clear.

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