Edit constants in Java class files by exact constant pool index to patch game binaries. Specify session, class path, and index-to-value map for targeted modifications.
Edit constants by their exact constant pool index.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| edits | Yes | Map of pool_index -> new_value | |
| class_path | Yes | Path to .class file | |
| 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 supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it provides almost none. It says nothing about whether the edit is destructive/irreversible, whether the class must be recompiled or repacked, whether a session must be open, or what happens if an index is invalid.
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 efficient sentence with the mechanism front-loaded and no wasted words. It is not padded, though it is thin on the substance an agent needs.
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?
This is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, so the description should cover preconditions and side effects. It omits session requirements, class_path meaning, failure behavior, and post-edit workflow, leaving the definition materially incomplete.
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 coverage is 100% and all three parameters are documented, so the baseline is 3. The phrase 'exact constant pool index' loosely reinforces the key semantics of the edits map, but the schema already states 'Map of pool_index -> new_value', so no real value is added.
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 (Edit) and resource (constants) plus the addressing mechanism (exact constant pool index), which distinguishes it from the sibling jar_edit_class_constants. It stops short of explicitly naming that sibling or clarifying the relationship, so 4 rather than 5.
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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (an open session, a valid class path), and no routing to the nearest alternative jar_edit_class_constants or jar_inspect_constant_pool. The agent must infer the trigger context entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.