Creates a new Minecraft modpack folder with pack.mcmeta, version.txt, loader.txt, and a mods directory, so you can start a Fabric, Forge, or Quilt pack from a known structure.
在指定目录创建一个新的 Minecraft 整合包结构（pack.mcmeta + version.txt + loader.txt + mods/ 目录）
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | 整合包名称 | |
| loader | No | 加载器类型 | |
| pack_dir | Yes | 整合包根目录路径，例如 C:/Users/xxx/Desktop/MyModpack | |
| mc_version | No | MC 版本，如 1.20.1 | |
| pack_format | No | pack.mcmeta 的 pack_format 数字 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses which files and folders are created, but omits critical mutation behavior such as whether existing files are overwritten, whether pack_dir must already exist or be empty, and what happens on failure.
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 sentence, front-loaded with the action and the artifact list, with no redundant or filler text. It is appropriately sized for the tool.
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?
For a five-parameter creation tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description provides the essential purpose and created artifacts. However, with no annotations, it leaves important preconditions and overwrite behavior unanswered, so it is only minimally complete.
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%, so the schema documents all five parameters, including the pack_dir example and the loader enum. The description only implies pack_dir via '指定目录' and adds no extra parameter syntax or default guidance beyond the schema.
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?
States a specific verb ('创建') and resource ('Minecraft 整合包结构'), and lists the exact artifacts produced (pack.mcmeta, version.txt, loader.txt, mods/). The creation operation is naturally distinct from sibling read/search/export tools, though the description does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.
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?
Usage is implied: use this when creating a new modpack in a specified directory. However, it gives no when-not guidance, no prerequisites such as directory emptiness, and does not point to siblings like get_pack_info or export_standard_pack for other operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.