craftpilot-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

mc_capabilities

Check which CraftPilot commands are enabled or disabled in the in-game settings before calling tools, so disabled ones don't cause unexpected errors.

Instructions

List which CraftPilot commands are enabled/disabled in the in-game CraftPilot settings. Disabled tools return an error saying so.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "mc_capabilities"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full load. It usefully discloses that disabled capabilities cause other tools to return an error, which is real behavioral context, but says nothing about permissions, state changes, or the shape of the listing returned.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the one behavioral caveat. Nothing redundant or padded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what is returned (a list of enabled/disabled commands) and the key consequence of disabled entries. A brief note on the return format would close the remaining gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case; there is nothing to document and the description correctly makes no parameter claims.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List which CraftPilot commands are enabled/disabled in the in-game CraftPilot settings.' That is clearly distinct from the action-oriented siblings (mc_click, mc_key, mc_type), though it does not explicitly name a sibling or contrast itself with them.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied: the note that 'Disabled tools return an error saying so' hints that an agent should call this before invoking other tools, but it never states when to use this versus alternatives or any exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.