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

RPG Maker MV MCP Server

by Xerolo44
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Name a variable

set_variable_name

Assign a descriptive name to any game variable in RPG Maker MV, with automatic array expansion for new IDs.

Instructions

Set the editor name of a game variable in System.json (e.g. variable 3 = 'Quest Progress'). The variables array grows if the id is beyond its current size.

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": {
      "id": "<id>",
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "set_variable_name"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesVariable id (1-based)
nameYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only discloses that the variables array grows if the id is beyond current size, but does not mention side effects, persistence behavior, permission requirements, or error conditions (e.g., invalid names). For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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 with an example—no wasted words. Critical information is front-loaded. Ideal conciseness.

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 does not explain return values or confirmation of success. It also omits error handling, prerequisites (e.g., project loaded), and relationship to other tools (e.g., get_system to verify). Adequate for a simple tool but not fully complete.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 50%: the 'id' parameter is described (1-based), but 'name' lacks description. The description adds an example suggesting 'name' is a string, but does not specify format, length limits, or allowed characters. Overall, minimal added value 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?

The description clearly states the action: 'Set the editor name of a game variable in System.json' and provides a concrete example ('e.g. variable 3 = 'Quest Progress''). This uniquely identifies the tool's purpose among siblings, as no other sibling focuses on variable naming.

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 via the example and notes array auto-growth for new IDs, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., reading variables or setting other system properties). No usage exclusions or comparisons are provided.

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