Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mc-modpack-mcp

mc-modpack-mcp

by dcd887
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

list_mods

Scan a Minecraft instance's mods directory to list all JAR files with basic info. Filter results by name using regex to identify installed mods and diagnose modpack contents.

Instructions

扫描指定实例的 mods/ 目录，列出所有 JAR 文件及其基本信息。支持按名称过滤（filter 参数，支持正则）。

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": {
      "mc_dir": "<mc_dir>",
      "instance_id": "<instance_id>"
    },
    "name": "list_mods"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
filterNo
mc_dirYes
instance_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions scanning and listing, but does not state whether the operation is read-only, what happens if the directory is missing, or any side effects. There is no mention of permissions, errors, 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 extremely concise, using two short sentences to convey the primary purpose and a key parameter detail. There is no wasted text, and it is front-loaded with the main action.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is the only source of context. It does not mention the output format, what 'basic information' includes, or behavior in edge cases (e.g., empty directory). This leaves significant gaps for an agent trying to use the tool correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does explain that 'filter' supports regex and is for name filtering, but it does not explicitly define 'mc_dir' and 'instance_id' beyond the schema's type declarations. The description implies they specify the instance and directory, but not fully.

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: scanning the mods/ directory of a given instance and listing JAR files with basic information. It also mentions the regex-based filtering capability, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_java_versions or detect_conflicts.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any conditions or exclusions. It simply describes the function without contextualizing its use case relative to sibling tools.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools