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

RPG Maker MV MCP Server

by Xerolo44
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Create plugin

create_plugin

Generates a new RPG Maker MV plugin file with automatic registration and optional scaffold. Fails if the file already exists.

Instructions

Create a new plugin file in js/plugins/ and register it. If no code is given, a standard MV plugin scaffold (with @plugindesc header) is written. Fails if the file already exists.

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": "create_plugin"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
codeNoFull JavaScript source; omit for a scaffold
nameYesPlugin file name without .js
statusNo
descriptionNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses creation location, registration, scaffold generation when no code, and failure if file exists. This is largely sufficient for a file creation tool, though return behavior is not mentioned.

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 sentences, front-loaded with core action and key behaviors. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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, the description lacks information about what the function returns (e.g., success status or plugin object). It covers the main behavior but omits return value and potential side effects like state changes.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is 50% with parameters 'status' and 'description' lacking descriptions in schema. The description does not add any information about these parameters, failing to compensate for the gap. It reiterates the scaffold behavior for 'code' already stated in 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'Create', the resource 'plugin file' with location 'js/plugins/', and the action 'register it'. It also distinguishes from siblings by noting 'Fails if the file already exists', implying this is for new files only.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage for creating new plugins but does not explicitly state when to use alternatives like write_plugin or configure_plugin. The failure condition on existing files gives some guidance, but no when-not or alternative references.

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