Skip to main content
Glama

review_minestom_design

Read-onlyIdempotent

Validate Minestom feature designs against the platform's manager, instance, event, scheduler, and threading patterns to ensure compatibility.

Instructions

Use this when you want Minestom-specific design feedback that checks whether a proposed feature aligns with the platform’s manager, instance, event, scheduler, and threading patterns.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
designNotesYesFree-form design notes or a proposed implementation approach to review.
featureTypeYesThe kind of Minestom feature the notes describe.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
featureTypeYes
fitAssessmentYes
gapsYes
recommendedApisYes
recommendedTopicsYes
riskyAssumptionsYes
strengthsYes
threadTickConcernsYes

Implementation Reference

  • The main execute handler for the review_minestom_design tool. Parses designNotes and featureType, evaluates the design against the feature blueprint's designChecks to identify strengths and gaps, performs feature-type-specific risky assumption checks, computes a fitAssessment (strong/partial/weak), and returns a structured review with recommended APIs, topics, and thread safety concerns.
    }).server(async (args) => {
    	const { designNotes, featureType } =
    		reviewMinestomDesignInputSchema.parse(args);
    	const blueprint = getFeatureBlueprint(featureType);
    	const loweredNotes = designNotes.toLowerCase();
    
    	const strengths = blueprint.designChecks
    		.filter((check) =>
    			check.keywords.some((keyword) => loweredNotes.includes(keyword)),
    		)
    		.map((check) => check.strength);
    
    	const gaps = blueprint.designChecks
    		.filter(
    			(check) =>
    				!check.keywords.some((keyword) => loweredNotes.includes(keyword)),
    		)
    		.map((check) => check.gap);
    
    	const riskyAssumptions: string[] = [];
    
    	if (
    		loweredNotes.includes("async") &&
    		!/(acquirable|scheduler|taskschedule|executiontype|sync)/.test(loweredNotes)
    	) {
    		riskyAssumptions.push(
    			"The design mentions async work without explaining how Minestom-owned state is reacquired or handed back safely.",
    		);
    	}
    
    	if (
    		featureType === "instance-setup" &&
    		loweredNotes.includes("per-player") &&
    		!loweredNotes.includes("sharedinstance")
    	) {
    		riskyAssumptions.push(
    			"Per-player world semantics are mentioned without clarifying whether `SharedInstance` or a separate `InstanceContainer` owns that state.",
    		);
    	}
    
    	if (
    		featureType === "scheduled-task" &&
    		!/(cancel|shutdown|stop)/.test(loweredNotes)
    	) {
    		riskyAssumptions.push(
    			"The design does not explain who cancels or tears down the scheduled task when the feature stops.",
    		);
    	}
    
    	if (
    		featureType === "server-bootstrap" &&
    		!/(instance|spawn|asyncplayerconfigurationevent)/.test(loweredNotes)
    	) {
    		riskyAssumptions.push(
    			"The bootstrap notes do not make the initial player-to-instance flow explicit.",
    		);
    	}
    
    	const fitAssessment =
    		strengths.length >= Math.max(blueprint.designChecks.length - 1, 2)
    			? "strong"
    			: strengths.length >= 2
    				? "partial"
    				: "weak";
    
    	const recommendedApis = getApisBySymbols(blueprint.keyApiSymbols).map(
    		(api) => ({
    			javadocUrl: api.javadocUrl,
    			packageName: api.packageName,
    			symbol: api.symbol,
    		}),
    	);
    
    	return reviewMinestomDesignOutputSchema.parse({
    		featureType,
    		fitAssessment,
    		gaps,
    		recommendedApis,
    		recommendedTopics: [blueprint.primaryTopic, ...blueprint.supportingTopics],
    		riskyAssumptions,
    		strengths,
    		threadTickConcerns: blueprint.threadSafetyNotes,
    	});
    });
  • Input schema for the review_minestom_design tool. Accepts designNotes (free-form design description) and featureType (one of: server-bootstrap, command, event-listener, instance-setup, scheduled-task).
    const reviewMinestomDesignInputSchema = z.object({
    	designNotes: z
    		.string()
    		.describe(
    			"Free-form design notes or a proposed implementation approach to review.",
    		),
    	featureType: minestomFeatureTypeSchema.describe(
    		"The kind of Minestom feature the notes describe.",
    	),
    });
  • Output schema for the review_minestom_design tool. Returns featureType, fitAssessment (strong/partial/weak), gaps, recommendedApis, recommendedTopics, riskyAssumptions, strengths, and threadTickConcerns.
    const reviewMinestomDesignOutputSchema = z.object({
    	featureType: minestomFeatureTypeSchema,
    	fitAssessment: reviewAssessmentSchema,
    	gaps: z.array(z.string()),
    	recommendedApis: z.array(
    		z.object({
    			javadocUrl: z.string().url(),
    			packageName: z.string(),
    			symbol: z.string(),
    		}),
    	),
    	recommendedTopics: z.array(minestomTopicSchema),
    	riskyAssumptions: z.array(z.string()),
    	strengths: z.array(z.string()),
    	threadTickConcerns: z.array(z.string()),
    });
  • src/tools.ts:26-28 (registration)
    Registration of the reviewMinestomDesignTool in the tools array that gets exported as serverTools.
    	reviewMinestomDesignTool,
    	suggestMinestomLibrariesTool,
    );
  • Helper function getFeatureBlueprint() used by the review handler to look up the FeatureBlueprint for a given featureType, which contains designChecks, keyApiSymbols, threadSafetyNotes, etc.
    export function getFeatureBlueprint(
    	featureType: MinestomFeatureType,
    ): FeatureBlueprint {
    	return featureBlueprints[featureType];
    }
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. Description adds no further behavioral context. It confirms the tool checks design patterns but does not expand on safety or side effects beyond what annotations provide.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with usage context. No wasted words. Every part earns its place.

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?

Given two simple parameters, 100% schema coverage, and presence of output schema, the description is complete. It explains the tool's purpose and when to use it without missing critical details.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters have clear descriptions. Description does not add any additional meaning or constraints beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'review' and the resource 'Minestom-specific design feedback', specifying alignment with platform patterns. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'plan_minestom_feature' (planning) and 'explain_minestom_pattern' (explanation).

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 states when to use: 'Use this when you want Minestom-specific design feedback...' Provides context but lacks explicit exclusions or naming of alternative tools. Still clear enough for agent decision.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Azoraqua/minestom-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server