Scan JAR contents to identify the mod loader, version, and internal structure so you can plan compatible inspections, edits, or patches.
Auto-detect mod loader, version, and structure from JAR contents.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| session_id | Yes | Session ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.4Does 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 implies a read-only scan but doesn't state whether it mutates session state, persists results, requires an existing session, or how it handles unrecognized JARs.
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?
A single tight sentence with the key action front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though almost too terse given the missing behavioral detail.
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 read-only detection utility this is nearly adequate, but with no output schema the description should at least hint at the returned shape (loader name, version fields). The prerequisite relationship to jar_open sessions is also unaddressed.
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?
Only one parameter (session_id) and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, making the baseline 3 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?
States a specific verb (detect) and a concrete resource (mod loader, version, structure) scoped to JAR contents. It is clearly distinguishable from generic siblings like detect_engine or jar_read_class, though it doesn't explicitly name an 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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives named. It doesn't say whether a JAR must first be opened via jar_open/jar_list_sessions, which matters given the session_id parameter.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.