Skip to main content
Glama

Audit the game before playing it

validate_game
Read-only

Validate an RPG Maker MZ project to catch runtime errors like missing assets, invalid event references, and unreachable maps before playtesting.

Instructions

Read-only check of the things that only show up in play. System: the start position on a map that exists, inside it, on a cell the player can stand, with a party of at least one named actor; the switch and variable tables in the array shape the engine indexes, and every id an event names that is past their end; and the keys the engine dereferences without a fallback (advanced.windowOpacity and friends), which is how a project copied from the shipped data/newdata template turns out to die on its own title screen. Events: transfer destinations (checked against the destination map's own size and passability), every database id a command reads, encounter rows (a real troop, a regionSet that is painted, a non-zero weight), pages whose indent does not match the branch they sit under, and the graphics and audio the project does not have — including the picture a Show Picture command names, which nothing else reads, and which only ever loads as <name>.png. Also tile ids painted from a slot the tileset has no image for, and reachability from the start through the portals that exist. Each problem comes back as {severity, where, what, fix} and fix names the call that clears it. This is the gate a build script should pass before a playtest starts, and it never writes.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fromNoWhere reachability starts; default System's start position
audioNoAlso check referenced audio files (default true)
limitNoCap on reported problems (default 120)
mapIdsNoRestrict the walk to these maps (default: every map in the project)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.4.2

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With readOnlyHint already declaring safety, the description still adds real behavioral context: it 'never writes,' it returns each problem as {severity, where, what, fix}, and `fix` names the call that clears it. It also explains that a project copied from data/newdata can die on its title screen, giving the agent a model of what failure looks like.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loads the one-line purpose before the detail and organizes the enumeration with 'System:' and 'Events:' labels, so it is navigable despite its length. The clauses are dense and run long, but for a validator covering this many checks most of them carry information an agent needs.

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

Completeness5/5

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

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return-shape burden and does so ({severity, where, what, fix}), plus read-only semantics and the playtest-gate use case. For a complex 4-param audit tool, nothing essential is missing.

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 schema already documents `from`, `audio`, `limit`, and `mapIds`. The description alludes to start-position reachability and audio checking but adds no syntax, defaults, or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose5/5

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

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Read-only check of the things that only show up in play') and then enumerates the exact classes of defects audited (System start/switch-variable tables/missing engine keys, transfer destinations, encounter rows, page indent, missing graphics/audio, tileset slots, reachability). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like check_assets, map_connectivity, or fix_project.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Explicitly positions the tool as 'the gate a build script should pass before a playtest starts,' which gives clear when-to-use context, and implies it precedes fix_project by noting each fix names the clearing call. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with sibling validators such as check_assets or map_connectivity, so the routing guidance is strong but not exhaustive.

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