Create a new RPG Maker MZ project with default data files by specifying a title and absolute path, optionally pointing to your RPG Maker MZ installation.
Create a new RPG Maker MZ project with default data files.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| gameTitle | Yes | Title of the game | |
| projectPath | Yes | Absolute path where the project will be created | |
| rpgmakerPath | No | RPG Maker MZ installation path (auto-detected if omitted) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states that the tool creates a project with default data files, but does not clarify whether the operation is idempotent, what happens if a project already exists at the given path, whether it requires specific permissions, or what the return value indicates. For a creation tool, this is a significant 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?
The description is a single concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core action. There is no unnecessary information, making it efficient and easy to parse.
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?
Given the complexity of project creation, the description is minimally adequate. It lacks details about error conditions, side effects, and expected outcomes. No output schema exists, so the description should explain return values or success indicators, which it does not.
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 input schema already documents all three parameters with clear descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond what is in the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states a specific action ('Create') and resource ('RPG Maker MZ project') along with an additional detail ('with default data files'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'create_map' or 'create_entity' which create different resources within a project.
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?
The description implies usage by describing what the tool does, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this specific tool versus alternatives like 'load_project' or 'get_project_info'. It does not state prerequisites such as needing a valid project path or a compatible RPG Maker MZ installation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.