Search Java archive (JAR) files for classes, methods, or strings to locate code, inspect binaries, and guide game modding patches.
Search within JAR for classes, methods, or strings.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| session_id | Yes | Session ID | |
| search_term | Yes | Search term | |
| search_type | No | Type: filename, content, classname (default: filename) |
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 conveys only that a search occurs; it does not state that the operation is read-only/non-destructive, that a live session is required, or how results are bounded, which are relevant for a tool taking a session_id.
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 no waste and the verb/resource front-loaded. It is terse to the point of omitting prerequisites, but structurally sound and well-sized for what it says.
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 search over a session-scoped JAR with no output schema, the definition covers the basic action but omits the session lifecycle context (must jar_open first) and the distinction among the many sibling search tools. Adequate but with clear 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 baseline is 3. The description loosely maps to search_type ('classes, methods, strings' vs. the schema's filename/content/classname) but adds no syntax, format, or default detail beyond what the schema already supplies.
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 (search) and resource (JAR) plus the searchable targets (classes, methods, strings), so the action is clear. However, it does not differentiate itself from close siblings like jar_search_bytecode or jar_search_opcodes, leaving the agent to guess which search variant applies.
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 (e.g., an open JAR session), and no routing to alternatives such as jar_search_bytecode. The agent must infer everything about context from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.