Modify an RPG Maker MZ event's name, position, note, or character sprite using map and event IDs.
Update event properties (name, position, note, character sprite).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x | No | New X position | |
| y | No | New Y position | |
| name | No | New event name | |
| note | No | New event note | |
| mapId | Yes | Map ID | |
| eventId | Yes | Event ID | |
| characterName | No | Character sprite name (applies to page 1) | |
| characterIndex | No | Character sprite index (applies to page 1) |
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. It says 'update' (implying mutation) but does not state whether changes are reversible, whether partial updates are allowed, permissions required, or what happens to omitted fields. It also mentions character sprite applies to page 1, a small useful detail, but overall behavioral disclosure is thin.
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 efficient sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. No wasted words, though the parenthetical grouping of properties is somewhat vague about which parameters are actually available.
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?
Eight parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description does not mention required mapId/eventId, does not explain the page-1 restriction mentioned only for character fields, and does not cover partial update semantics. For an 8-parameter mutation tool, this is insufficient.
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 8 parameters with clear descriptions. The description lists four property categories but adds no syntax, format, or constraint details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline is 3 for high coverage; here the description repeats schema content and even omits that x/y are separate from 'position' and that characterName/characterIndex are distinct, so it is slightly less useful than the schema alone.
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 (update) and resource (event) plus the properties affected (name, position, note, character sprite), which is more detail than the bare title. However, it does not distinguish this from siblings like update_entity or update_map, leaving some ambiguity about scope when multiple update tools exist.
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 create_event, delete_event, or other update tools. The description gives no prerequisites, no indication of when not to use it, and no mention of alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.