Retrieve detailed information about a specific RPG Maker MZ map, including its events, by passing a map ID. Use it to inspect map contents before editing or referencing events.
Get detailed information about a specific map, including its events.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mapId | Yes | Map ID |
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. The verb 'Get' implies read-only behavior and 'including its events' discloses return content, but no permissions, rate limits, error behavior, or explicit safety profile are described. For a simple getter this is minimally adequate, but gaps remain.
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with the action and scope. There is no filler; every word contributes to the stated purpose.
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?
The tool is simple with one required parameter and no output schema. The description gives a rough return scope ('detailed information ... including its events') but no field-level detail, and it does not cover prerequisites such as needing list_maps to find a mapId. Adequate but not thorough.
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% and the single parameter mapId is documented in the schema as 'Map ID'. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond 'specific map', 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?
States a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'map', and scopes to 'a specific map' versus sibling list_maps; 'including its events' clarifies returned content. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but sufficiently distinguishes itself from list/create/update/delete map siblings.
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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives like list_maps for obtaining a mapId or get_entity when entity details are needed. Usage is only implied by the phrase 'specific map'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.