Generates Minecraft mod entity code for living entities, projectiles, or misc types, targeting Forge or NeoForge using mod ID, package, and entity name.
Generate entity code (LivingEntity, Projectile, or misc).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Entity name in PascalCase | |
| type | Yes | Entity type base class | |
| 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 provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says the tool 'generates' code, but does not explain whether files are written, if the project is modified, whether prerequisites like an existing mod project exist, or what the output looks like. For a generative, mutating tool this is a significant transparency gap.
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?
The description is a single concise sentence with no filler, and the core resource and categories are front-loaded. It is efficient, though slightly minimal; a touch more structure, such as separating behavior from output, would improve it, but it is already well-sized.
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, no output schema, and a five-parameter generator tool, the description is too thin. It omits return value, side effects, project state requirements, and how it fits with sibling tools like generate_mod_project, leaving the agent without critical execution context.
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?
All five parameters have inline descriptions and enums in the input schema, so schema coverage is high. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond restating the type enum in friendlier language; the schema already handles the heavy lifting, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 states the specific verb 'Generate' and resource 'entity code', and explicitly enumerates the supported categories (LivingEntity, Projectile, misc), which clearly differentiates it from sibling code generators like generate_block and generate_item. Even without naming a sibling, the type list makes the target resource unambiguous.
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 description implies the tool is for entity code generation based on the named resource and types, but it does not state when to prefer it over alternatives or any exclusions. Sibling tool names provide external context, but the description itself offers only implied usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.