Save a named set of constant edits with its target class path and edit map, so you can reuse the same game mod changes later.
Save a named preset of constant edits for reuse.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| edits | Yes | Edit map | |
| edit_mode | No | Edit mode: constants or pool (default: constants) | |
| class_path | Yes | Target class path | |
| description | Yes | Preset description | |
| preset_name | Yes | Preset name |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but only states that it saves a preset. It does not disclose whether saving overwrites an existing preset, where presets are stored, what permissions are needed, or what the operation returns.
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 wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's purpose.
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?
The tool has five parameters (including a nested object), no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description is only one sentence. It omits important behavioral context such as persistence location, overwrite behavior, and how presets integrate with jar_preset_apply or jar_preset_list, leaving the definition incomplete for correct invocation.
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 all five parameters in detail. The description adds no further parameter meaning beyond the phrase 'constant edits', which loosely relates to the edits parameter but does not clarify the edit_mode or other fields.
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 specific verb (save) and resource (named preset of constant edits), so an agent can understand the core action. It does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like jar_preset_apply or jar_preset_list, which is why it falls short of a 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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'for reuse' hints at a use case, but no conditions, prerequisites, or sibling tool comparisons are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.