Retrieve all items defined in the RPG Maker MZ project. Use this to access item data for game development or analysis.
Get all items from the project
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "get_items"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get all items from the project' which essentially restates the tool name. It does not disclose return format, potential size, pagination, or any permission requirements, leaving the agent with minimal behavioral insight.
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, short, front-loaded sentence: 'Get all items from the project'. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter tool with no wasted words, making it easy to parse quickly.
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?
For such a simple tool, the description is functional but minimal. Without an output schema, it does not clarify what 'items' includes (e.g., whether it includes weapons/armor) or what the return structure looks like. Given the many sibling tools, a brief clarification of scope would improve completeness.
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?
The tool has zero parameters and the input schema is empty (coverage 100%). With no parameters, the description does not need to elaborate, and the baseline of 4 applies. Nothing additional is required.
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 uses a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('all items'), and scope ('the project'), which clearly states what the tool does. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_weapons or get_armors, which may overlap with 'items' depending on the game data model.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling search_items exists, but the description does not mention when a full 'get all' is appropriate versus a filtered search, nor does it note any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.