list_addonsRetrieve all behavior and resource packs installed on a Minecraft Bedrock server by providing its server name, so you can inspect available add-ons.
List all behavior and resource packs installed on the server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| server_name | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does 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. 'List' implies a non-destructive read, but the description does not state permission requirements, whether the target server must be running, or what happens on failure, leaving the safety/behavior profile largely unstated.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to identifying the resource being listed.
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 a simple one-parameter listing tool with no output schema, the purpose is conveyed adequately. However, the meaning of server_name and the read-only nature are left to inference, so it is minimally viable rather than complete.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0% for the single parameter server_name, and the description never mentions it. It implies a server context ('installed on the server') but does not explain that server_name selects which server, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap.
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?
Uses a specific verb ('List') and names the exact resource ('behavior and resource packs installed on the server'), which is clear and distinct from siblings like list_backups or get_allowlist. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from other list_* tools, but the resource is specific enough to identify it.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no prerequisites stated. A reader infers it is a read-only enumeration, but nothing explicitly says so or distinguishes it from the other listing tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.