Generates DataGen provider code for recipes, loot tables, tags, models, or language files in Minecraft Forge/NeoForge. Specify provider type, mod ID, loader, and Java package to produce it.
Generate DataGen provider code (recipe, loot, tag, model, language).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | Yes | Provider type | |
| modId | Yes | Mod ID | |
| loader | Yes | Target mod loader | |
| packageName | Yes | Java package |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only says 'Generate ... code' and does not disclose whether the tool writes files, returns code snippets, requires an existing project, or has side effects on the workspace.
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, contains no filler or repeated schema content. It earns its place despite being minimal.
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?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description should clarify what the generated output looks like and whether it mutates the project. It is adequate for basic intent but incomplete for safe invocation: an agent cannot tell if this returns code text or creates files.
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% and each parameter (type, modId, loader, packageName) is already described in the schema. The description's parenthetical list repeats the type enum, adding no meaning beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.
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?
The description uses a specific verb ('Generate') and resource ('DataGen provider code') and enumerates five provider types in parentheses. This makes it immediately distinguishable from sibling generators like generate_block, generate_item, and generate_event_handler.
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?
There is no statement about when to choose this tool or when to prefer a sibling/alternative. It implies the use case via the name and parenthetical, but does not provide exclusions or prerequisites such as an existing mod project or intended placement within a DataGen pipeline.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.