Generate network packet code for Minecraft Forge/NeoForge mods, defining packet direction and fields for client-server communication.
Generate network packet code for client-server communication.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Packet name in PascalCase | |
| modId | Yes | Mod ID | |
| fields | Yes | Packet fields | |
| loader | Yes | Target mod loader | |
| direction | Yes | Packet direction | |
| 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 full behavioral burden. It says the tool 'generates' code, but does not clarify whether it writes files, returns code snippets, requires an existing mod project, or has side effects. This is insufficient for a code-generation 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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary verbosity.
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 six required parameters, the description is too thin. It omits important context like what the generated code looks like, how it integrates, and what side effects occur. An agent would need to infer too much before invoking it.
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%: all six parameters have meaningful descriptions in the input schema. The description itself adds minimal parameter context, but the schema already carries that weight.
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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Generate network packet code for client-server communication.' This distinguishes it from sibling generators like generate_block, generate_item, and generate_event_handler, though it could more explicitly mention the Minecraft modding context.
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 guidance about when to use this tool versus the many sibling generator tools. The description does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or mention that this is for network packet code specifically versus other mod components.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.