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

RPG Maker MV MCP Server

by Xerolo44
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Delete map event

delete_event

Removes an event from a map by setting its slot to null, preserving other event IDs and matching editor behavior.

Instructions

Delete an event from a map. The slot is set to null so other event ids are unaffected (matches editor behavior).

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": {
      "mapId": "<mapId>",
      "eventId": "<eventId>"
    },
    "name": "delete_event"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
mapIdYes
eventIdYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.5.1

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add real behavioral insight: the slot is nulled so other event ids stay stable, which explains the data-model consequence of deletion. However it never states that the operation is destructive/irreversible, whether it is transactional or undoable via undo_changeset, or what happens to references to the deleted event.

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 short sentences, zero padding, with the core action stated first and the behavioral caveat second. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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?

For a two-parameter destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should say whether the deletion is reversible or requires a changeset, and it omits both. The null-slot detail partially compensates but leaves the safety profile underspecified.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for mapId and eventId, and it largely does not — it only hints at id-slot semantics via the null-slot note. It never clarifies whether eventId is a map-event id versus an event page index, which is the main ambiguity risk in this domain.

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?

"Delete an event from a map" is a specific verb plus resource, and the delete verb cleanly separates it from siblings like update_event, get_event, and create_event. An agent can identify the operation from the first four words.

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 usage is implied by the name, but the description never says when to prefer this over update_event, undo_changeset, or discard_changeset, nor whether a changeset must be open first. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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