send_commandExecute console commands on a running Minecraft Bedrock server to manage players, settings, and game state.
Execute a console command on a running Minecraft server (e.g. 'say Hello', 'whitelist on', 'time set day').
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| command | Yes | The command string to execute in server console | |
| server_name | Yes | The name of the target server |
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. It implies arbitrary command execution and mutation but never states permissions required, that commands can be destructive/irreversible, or what happens on an invalid command. This is a significant gap for an execute-arbitrary-string tool.
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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with parenthetical examples that earn their place by clarifying what a 'command' looks like. No waste.
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 two-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core action but omits the safety/permission profile and any notion of the response or error behavior. Adequate but with clear gaps.
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 100%, so both parameters are documented in the schema and the baseline is 3. The examples in the description loosely illustrate the expected command format, adding marginal value beyond the schema but no syntax or format rules.
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?
States a specific verb (execute) and resource (console command) and adds concrete examples ('say Hello', 'whitelist on') that pin down the scope. It is distinguishable from siblings like start_server or set_permission, though it doesn't explicitly name what separates it from them.
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?
The phrase 'on a running Minecraft server' implies the prerequisite that the server must already be up, which is useful context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives guidance, nor any note about when this tool is inappropriate (e.g. use stop_server instead).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.