Skip to main content
Glama
mattlack15

Minecraft Command Execution MCP Server

by mattlack15
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

58%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v0.1.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: execute_command runs commands, while tab_complete provides suggestions for command completion. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them, as one is for execution and the other is for discovery/assistance.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun naming pattern (execute_command and tab_complete). The naming is clear, predictable, and uses the same style throughout, making it easy to understand their functions at a glance.

    Tool Count2/5

    With only 2 tools, the server feels thin for its purpose of Minecraft command execution. While the tools cover basic execution and completion, there are likely missing operations such as listing available commands, checking player status, or handling command history, which would enhance the server's utility and completeness.

    Completeness2/5

    The tool set is severely incomplete for the domain of Minecraft command execution. It lacks essential operations like listing all available commands, validating commands before execution, managing multiple players, or handling command feedback in a structured way. This forces agents to rely heavily on trial-and-error with execute_command and tab_complete, leading to potential inefficiencies and failures.

  • Average 4.7/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.

    If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.

    MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior4/5

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

    With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behavioral traits: the player will be notified in-game, the command executes as the authenticated player, and it returns output or error messages. It covers the essential mutation behavior and user feedback mechanism, though it doesn't mention rate limits or specific error handling details.

    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?

    The description is well-structured and appropriately sized. It starts with the core purpose, then provides usage details, parameter explanation, return values, and examples. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant information, and it's front-loaded with the most important information.

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

    Completeness5/5

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

    Given the tool's complexity (remote command execution with authentication requirements), no annotations, and an output schema exists, the description provides excellent completeness. It covers purpose, prerequisites, parameter usage, return behavior, and multiple examples. The output schema handles return value structure, so the description appropriately focuses on operational context.

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

    Parameters5/5

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

    The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully compensate. It provides comprehensive parameter semantics: explains what the 'command' parameter is ('The Minecraft command to execute without the leading slash'), gives multiple examples, and shows how to get help. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema.

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

    Purpose5/5

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

    The description clearly states the specific action ('Execute a Minecraft command remotely as the authenticated player') and distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'tab_complete' by focusing on command execution rather than completion suggestions. It specifies the resource (Minecraft command) and the context (remote execution as authenticated player).

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

    Usage Guidelines4/5

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

    The description provides clear context for when to use this tool ('run any Minecraft command as if the player associated with the API key typed it in-game'), including prerequisites (player must be online and on a server). It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or provide detailed alternatives beyond the sibling tool, but the context is well-defined.

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

  • Behavior4/5

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

    With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes what the tool does (provides autocomplete suggestions), the context (like pressing Tab in Minecraft), and the return behavior (formatted list or message if none available). It doesn't mention rate limits or error handling, but covers the core behavior well.

    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?

    The description is well-structured and appropriately sized. It starts with a clear purpose statement, follows with usage guidelines, then provides parameter details, return information, and concrete examples. Every sentence adds value with zero wasted content.

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

    Completeness5/5

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

    Given the tool's moderate complexity (single parameter, no annotations, but with output schema), the description is complete. It explains the purpose, usage, parameter with examples, and return behavior. The existence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to detail return values, and it adequately covers what's needed for this autocompletion tool.

    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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides a clear parameter description: 'command_line: The partial command line to complete' with three concrete examples that illustrate valid inputs. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't detail all possible command formats.

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

    Purpose5/5

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

    The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get tab completion suggestions for a partial Minecraft command.' It specifies the exact action (get suggestions) and resource (Minecraft commands), and distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'execute_command' by focusing on autocompletion rather than command execution.

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

    Usage Guidelines5/5

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

    The description explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Useful for discovering available commands, subcommands, and valid arguments.' It provides clear context for its purpose (autocompletion like pressing Tab) and distinguishes it from the alternative 'execute_command' by not overlapping in functionality.

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

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

midnightsky-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

midnightsky-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/mattlack15/midnightsky-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server