Open and extract a JAR file to inspect, search, and edit its contents for game modding.
Open and extract a JAR file for exploration and editing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| jar_path | Yes | Path to the JAR file | |
| session_id | No | Optional custom 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 must carry the full behavioral burden, but it only restates the action. It does not disclose whether extraction writes to disk, creates a session, modifies the original JAR, requires specific permissions, or 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 front-loaded sentence with no redundant wording. It is appropriately sized for its limited content.
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 tool that opens/extracts a JAR and accepts a session_id, the description omits session lifecycle context, whether it is an entry point for other jar_* tools, and any side effects. With no annotations and no output schema, this leaves significant gaps.
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 input schema already documents jar_path and session_id. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, 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?
The description states a clear verb ('Open and extract') and resource ('a JAR file'), plus a scope ('for exploration and editing'). It does not, however, distinguish this tool from siblings like jar_list, jar_read_class, or jar_search, so it falls short of the highest tier.
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?
It implies the tool is used for exploration and editing, but gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, prerequisites, or alternatives. With many sibling JAR tools, an agent has no guidance on when this entry point should be chosen over others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.