RPG Maker MZ MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

update_weapon

Update an existing weapon's properties such as name, price, attack, and icon in RPG Maker MZ projects without manual file editing.

Instructions

Update an existing weapon's properties

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "update_weapon"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	Weapon ID to update
`name`	No
`description`	No
`price`	No
`attack`	No
`iconIndex`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0May 31, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states 'update' without disclosing side effects, return values, validation, or partial update behavior, leaving significant behavioral gaps.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise (one sentence), which is efficient, but it lacks structure and detail. While not verbose, the conciseness comes at the cost of completeness.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Given the moderate complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain return values, error handling, allowed field updates, or any contextual constraints beyond the ID requirement.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 17% (only 'id' is described), and the description does not elaborate on the remaining parameters (name, description, price, attack, iconIndex). The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, failing to compensate for the low coverage.

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 it updates an existing weapon's properties, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_weapon or get_weapons, though it does not specify which properties can be updated.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any preconditions or exclusions. The agent is left to infer usage from context.

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