RPG Maker MZ MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

create_map

Create a new map in an RPG Maker MZ project, setting its name, dimensions, tileset, scroll behavior, and encounter steps.

Instructions

Create a new map in the project

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "create_map"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	Map name (shown in editor)
`displayName`	No	Display name (shown in game)
`width`	No	Map width in tiles
`height`	No	Map height in tiles
`tilesetId`	No	Tileset ID to use
`scrollType`	No	Scroll type: 0=NoLoop, 1=Vertical, 2=Horizontal, 3=Both
`encounterSteps`	No	Average steps between encounters
`parentId`	No	Parent map ID for hierarchy

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0May 31, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states 'Create a new map'. It does not indicate consequences of duplicate names, required permissions, side effects, or response details. The minimal description leaves agents to infer from the name alone.

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?

The description is a single sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core purpose. Every aspect of the description earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, error conditions, or operational behavior beyond creation. The agent lacks critical context for effective invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the schema. Each parameter is already well-documented in the input schema with descriptions, defaults, and constraints.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Create a new map in the project', which specifies the action and resource. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like get_maps (read) and update_map (modify). However, it does not provide any additional context about the map's role or project scope.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that update_map should be used for modifications, or that get_maps should be used for retrieval. No usage context or exclusions are provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.