minecraft-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Run a console command

run_command

Execute any vanilla or plugin command from the server console and get its output. Optionally specify an online player to run the command as that player.

Instructions

Execute a vanilla or plugin command from the server console, without the leading slash (e.g. "say hello"). Returns the command output, possibly empty.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "command": "<command>"
    },
    "name": "run_command"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`player`	No	Online player name (defaults to the first online player)
`command`	Yes	Command without the leading /

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the primary behavior (executing a command) and the return type ('Returns the command output, possibly empty'). However, it does not warn about potential side effects or permission requirements.

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?

Two concise sentences that are front-loaded with the action and include a concrete example. No filler or redundant phrasing.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The tool is simple but has a potential ambiguity around the 'player' parameter, which the description does not clarify. It also omits any mention of error cases or safety for a command execution tool. Given no output schema, the description covers purpose and return behavior but leaves these gaps.

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%, so the schema fully documents both parameters. The description adds the example 'say hello' but no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Execute'), the resource ('vanilla or plugin command from the server console'), and includes an example. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on server console execution rather than player actions.

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?

The 'from the server console' phrasing provides clear context for when to use this tool, differentiating it from player-facing chat or actions. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools.

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