Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
MC Source MCP Server

MC Source MCP Server

by mnooseman
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Decompile Class

decompile_class

Decompile a specific Minecraft class by providing version ID and class path. Reveals the Java source code for any .class file.

Instructions

Decompile a specific Minecraft class

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "version": "<version>",
      "className": "<className>"
    },
    "name": "decompile_class"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
versionYesThe Minecraft version ID (e.g. "1.20.4")
classNameYesThe full class path to decompile (e.g. "net/minecraft/ChatFormatting.class" or "net/minecraft/ChatFormatting")

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description alone must disclose behavior. It only states the action without explaining what the decompiled output looks like, potential errors, side effects, or permissions required. This is a significant gap.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity, even though it lacks depth in other dimensions.

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

Completeness2/5

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

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more context about the decompilation result and usage. It does not mention how the output is returned or when this tool is appropriate, leaving the agent under-informed.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both 'version' and 'className', including examples. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, but the schema already does the heavy lifting, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'Decompile' and identifies the resource as 'a specific Minecraft class'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_versions and search_classes, which serve different purposes.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as needing to find the class name with search_classes, or any context like supported Minecraft versions.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools