Create a new RPG Maker MZ map by specifying its name, dimensions, tileset, background music, and parent map ID.
Create a new map.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Map name | |
| width | No | Map width in tiles | |
| height | No | Map height in tiles | |
| bgmName | No | Background music name | |
| parentId | No | Parent map ID (0 for root) | |
| tilesetId | No | Tileset ID to use |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it delivers almost nothing. It doesn't state side effects, whether an ID is returned, whether the map is immediately active, or permission requirements. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a serious gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single short sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded and efficient, though that brevity is the result of underspecification rather than deliberate compression.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 6-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It omits creation context (project dependency), parent map hierarchy implications, and return behavior, leaving the agent to infer almost everything from the schema alone.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters including defaults, ranges, and meanings. The description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema provides, which is the baseline 3 when schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create a new map' restates the tool name with no added specificity. It doesn't distinguish from sibling update_map or get_map beyond the implied create vs read/update verb, but offers no scope, domain, or product context (e.g., RPG Maker-style map). This is essentially a tautology against the name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, no prerequisites stated (e.g., whether a project must be loaded first, which load_project and create_project siblings suggest), and no mention of required name uniqueness or parent map relationships. The agent gets no routing information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.