Minecraft Server MCP

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.1
Disambiguation3/5
Most tools have distinct purposes, but get_logs with optional filters likely overlaps with get_errors and get_warnings, which appear to be filtered subsets of the logs. This creates potential confusion for an agent deciding which tool to use for log retrieval.
Naming Consistency3/5
Tool names mix verb_noun patterns (list_servers, send_command) with bare nouns (plugins, status) and imperative verbs (connect, disconnect). While the names are readable, the lack of a single consistent convention reduces predictability.
Tool Count5/5
With 11 tools, the server covers the essential operations for Minecraft server management without unnecessary bloat. Each tool serves a recognizable function within the domain, making the count well-scoped.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers server status, connection handling, commands, logs, and player listings. However, plugin management is limited to listing, with no install/remove/update capabilities, and there is no server configuration tool, leaving minor gaps for advanced administration.
Average 3.2/5 across 11 of 11 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely restates the action without mentioning side effects, authentication requirements, execution semantics, return values, or potential risks of sending commands.
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?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately front-loaded and every word contributes to stating the tool's purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is minimal and lacks critical context for a command-execution tool: no mention of when to use it, what happens after sending, response format, or risk implications. The good schema coverage does not offset the missing higher-level context.
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?
The schema provides full 100% coverage for both parameters (api_key and commands) with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter-specific semantics, but it does not need to compensate given the schema's clarity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('send') and resource ('commands to the Minecraft server'), clearly indicating the action. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_commands, but the distinct action is implied by the phrasing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as connect, status, or get_commands. The description lacks context about prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It only restates the action without mentioning side effects (e.g., whether it establishes a persistent session), authentication flow, error handling, or whether it disrupts an existing connection. This leaves significant behavioral gaps for an agent to navigate.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. Every word contributes to the core meaning, making it highly concise and structured effectively.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
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 mutating/connecting action, the description should explain expected behavior such as whether the connection is maintained, what happens on timeout, or if it invalidates previous sessions. The current description is too shallow for an agent to fully complete the task reliably in a complex environment.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a small nuance by calling the API key an 'identifier,' implying a dual role beyond simple authentication, but it does not clarify how parameters relate to each other or what values are valid. This is just enough to justify a baseline score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Connect') and the resource ('a Minecraft server'), using a specific verb that distinguishes it from the sibling 'disconnect' tool. However, the phrase 'using API key as identifier' is slightly ambiguous—it could imply the API key identifies the server or the user, which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, when it should be called (e.g., before other commands), or what prerequisites exist. The sibling tools like 'list_servers' and 'disconnect' suggest a workflow, but the description does not mention them or any situational context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclosure behavioral traits. It only says 'Get server logs with optional filters,' which implies a read operation but says nothing about authentication, response format, pagination, default time ranges, or any side effects. This is minimal transparency for a tool requiring an API key.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately short, though it arguably sacrifices helpful detail for brevity. It does not over-explain and is easy to parse at a glance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is too sparse. It fails to specify what the logs contain, how filters interact, default behavior (e.g., time range, limit), or how this relates to sibling tools like get_errors or get_warnings. More behavioral and contextual detail is needed.
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 already documents all parameters. The description adds the phrase 'optional filters,' which loosely hints that start_time, end_time, and limit act as filters, but it provides no additional meaning beyond what the schema already states. This matches the baseline for full schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific action ('Get') and resource ('server logs'), and mentions 'optional filters' as a general capability. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_errors or get_warnings, which are likely specific log types, but 'server logs' implies a general retrieval scope, so it is distinguishable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_errors, get_warnings, or get_commands. It also lacks any mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'get' without noting that it requires an api_key, whether it is read-only, or any side effects. The lack of detail about authentication or response behavior is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise phrase with no wasted words. It is appropriately front-loaded, though slightly under-specified; however, this is a matter of content, not structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the warning logs contain or what response to expect. It does not even mention that api_key is required, leaving the tool's operation under-specified for an agent.
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 description coverage is 100% (limit, plugin, api_key each have descriptions). The description's phrase 'optional filters' adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves warning logs, using a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_logs or get_errors, but 'warning' narrows the scope sufficiently.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_logs or get_errors. The description does not mention any exclusions or specific use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get list', which implies a read operation, but does not mention prerequisites like an active connection, required permissions, or the nature of the returned data, so behavioral traits remain opaque.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise, front-loaded sentence that directly states the operation. It contains no fluff, but it could be more informative without sacrificing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description doesn't clarify what the returned list contains (e.g., names only, versions, metadata). It also omits any mention of error conditions or prerequisites beyond the api_key, leaving the agent with insufficient context for reliable invocation.
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?
The input schema already documents the single parameter api_key with a clear description ('API key of the server to query'), achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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 'Get list of installed Minecraft plugins' clearly states a specific verb (get) and resource (plugins), distinguishing it from sibling tools like player_list or get_logs. It precisely conveys what the tool does without ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that it queries a specific server via api_key or offers any exclusions, leaving the agent without context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('Get list of online players') and does not describe response format, authentication requirements beyond the api_key parameter, error handling, or whether the server must be online. This is insufficient for an agent to anticipate outcomes.
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?
The description is a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word earns its place, and there is no unnecessary verbosity.
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?
For a simple read-only tool with one parameter, the description is minimally adequate but lacks important context. There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should ideally mention what the returned list contains (e.g., player names) and any error conditions. This is a notable gap, though the tool's simplicity mitigates the impact.
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?
The input schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter (api_key) with a clear description ('API key of the server to query'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 tool's function with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('list of online players'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_servers or get_logs. There is no ambiguity about what the tool does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as status or list_servers. It does not mention context, prerequisites, or situations where another tool would be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'get', implying a read operation, but gives no details on return format, error handling, API key requirements, or any other behavioral traits.
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?
The description is a single concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficient for a simple tool.
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 has no output schema and a minimal description, leaving the return value ambiguous. It is unclear whether 'status and information' means only online/offline state or includes player counts, version, etc. This lack of context makes the description only moderately complete.
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% for the single parameter api_key, with a clear description in the schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 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 tool retrieves Minecraft server status and information, using a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Minecraft server status'). It is distinct from siblings like player_list or get_logs, which focus on specific aspects.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_servers or get_logs. It does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states the purpose and does not mention any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, error conditions, rate limits, or side effects. This is minimal disclosure for a tool that queries a server.
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?
The description is a single, clear sentence that front-loads the verb and object. It contains no filler or redundant information, making it appropriately concise for a tool with one parameter.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema. The description adequately explains what the tool does and what resource it queries. However, it does not mention any return format or additional context, and the lack of usage guidelines prevents a perfect score. Overall, it is sufficient for a basic read operation.
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?
The input schema already provides a full description for the sole required parameter (api_key: 'API key of the server to query'), covering 100% of parameter semantics. The description adds no additional information about how the parameter is used, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 tool's purpose: 'Get list of all registered server commands' – a specific verb ('get') and resource ('all registered server commands'). This distinguishes it from siblings like send_command (which sends a command) and list_servers (which lists servers).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as needing an active connection, or any other contextual cues. The description solely states what it does without saying when or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the action and the required key, but does not disclose what happens on disconnect (e.g., whether it is idempotent, requires an active connection, or has side effects). This is insufficient for a mutating tool.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the purpose and method.
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?
Given the tool's low complexity, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks any context about when to use it (e.g., after a connect) or what the expected behavior is if already disconnected. No output schema or annotations further limit the context.
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%, and the parameter description 'API key of the server to disconnect' already provides full meaning. The tool description merely repeats 'by API key', adding no extra semantics beyond the schema.
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 uses a specific verb 'Disconnect' and clearly indicates the resource ('Minecraft server') and the method ('by API key'). It is unambiguous and distinguishes itself from siblings like 'connect' and 'status'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage through its verb, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'connect' or 'status'. No exclusions or preconditions are mentioned, so it falls at 'implied usage'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It only states the action and doesn't mention read-only nature, authentication beyond the schema's api_key, pagination, or return format.
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?
The description is a single concise sentence that is front-loaded, with no superfluous information.
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 has no output schema and no annotations, so the description should provide more context on return value or behavior. It is somewhat sufficient for a simple read-only tool, but lacks explicit details on output format or error handling.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions 'optional filters' but doesn't add details beyond what the schema already provides for limit, plugin, and api_key.
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 identifies the resource as 'error logs' with a specific verb 'Get', distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_logs and get_warnings by focusing on errors.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for retrieving error logs but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool over siblings like get_logs or get_warnings, nor any exclusions or prerequisites beyond the api_key parameter.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'List' implicitly indicates a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as return format, authentication requirements, or rate limits. For a simple list operation, this is minimally adequate but not rich.
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?
The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the action verb, and contains no unnecessary words. It is maximally concise while conveying the core purpose.
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?
For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a simple list operation, the description provides the basic purpose but does not explain what the returned list contains (e.g., server names, statuses) or any other response details. This is a clear gap, but the tool is simple enough that the description is minimally viable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters and schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). According to the rubric, 0 params yields a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed; it reinforces the zero-parameter nature by saying 'all connected'.
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 'List all connected Minecraft servers' uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('all connected Minecraft servers'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like connect, disconnect, or status. It is explicit about what the tool does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage (when you need to see connected servers) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over siblings like 'status' or 'player_list'. There is no mention of alternatives or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![MCP-For-Minecraft-Server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Ver-zhzh/MCP-For-Minecraft-Server/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Ver-zhzh/MCP-For-Minecraft-Server)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![MCP-For-Minecraft-Server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Ver-zhzh/MCP-For-Minecraft-Server/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Ver-zhzh/MCP-For-Minecraft-Server)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Ver-zhzh/MCP-For-Minecraft-Server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server