Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
RPG Maker MV MCP Server

RPG Maker MV MCP Server

by Xerolo44
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Configure plugin

configure_plugin

Toggle a plugin's enabled status and update its parameter values in your RPG Maker MV project.

Instructions

Enable/disable a registered plugin and/or merge new values into its parameters (parameter values are always strings in RPG Maker MV).

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "configure_plugin"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesPlugin name as it appears in list_plugins
statusNotrue = enabled, false = disabled
parametersNoParameter values to merge into the plugin's parameters

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions merging parameters and the string nature of values, but does not clarify if existing parameters are replaced or merged, what responses look like, or any side effects (e.g., does it affect existing plugin functionality? Is the change persistent?). Core action is clear but lacks depth.

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?

Single sentence, no redundancy, front-loaded with actions and key constraints. Every word earns its place.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given no output schema and a moderate number of parameters including nested objects, the description covers the basic functionality but omits usage context, error conditions, and return value behavior. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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 descriptions already cover parameters adequately. The description adds value by explaining that parameter values are always strings (reinforcing the schema) and that the parameters object uses merge semantics. This clarifies behavior beyond the schema.

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?

Description clearly states the tool enables/disables a plugin and merges parameter values. It uses specific verbs ('configure', 'enable', 'disable', 'merge') and identifies the resource ('registered plugin'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_plugin or read_plugin.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Siblings like create_plugin, write_plugin, list_plugins exist, but the description does not provide conditions or exclusions to help an agent choose correctly.

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