Minecraft Server MCP
Server Quality Checklist
Latest release: v1.0.0
- Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes with clear boundaries, such as apply_effect for status effects, ban_player for bans, and create_backup for backups. However, there is some overlap between execute_command and execute_commands, which could cause confusion as they differ only in single vs. multiple command execution, and between set_server_property and set_server_properties_bulk, which are similar in function but differ in scope.
Naming Consistency5/5Tool names follow a highly consistent verb_noun pattern throughout, such as apply_effect, ban_player, create_backup, and delete_world. All tools use snake_case without deviation, making the naming predictable and easy to understand across the entire set.
Tool Count2/5With 40 tools, the count is excessive for a Minecraft server management domain, leading to potential bloat and complexity. While the tools cover many operations, a more streamlined set of 15-25 tools could achieve similar functionality without overwhelming users or agents.
Completeness5/5The tool set provides comprehensive coverage for Minecraft server management, including server control (start/stop/restart), player management (ban/kick/op), world operations (backup/restore/setup), configuration (properties/game rules), and in-game commands (teleport/summon/set_block). No significant gaps are apparent, supporting full lifecycle management.
Average 3.5/5 across 40 of 40 tools scored. Lowest: 2.3/5.
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
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
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.jsonto 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
- Behavior2/5
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 but adds none. It doesn't explain that 'whitelist on' restricts server access to only listed players, what 'reload' does, whether changes are immediate or require restart, or potential side effects of disabling the whitelist.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While brief (4 words), the description is under-informative rather than efficiently concise. It is front-loaded but sacrifices critical context necessary for a security-sensitive operation. The single sentence doesn't earn its place by providing actionable guidance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this controls server access (security-critical) and lacks annotations or output schema, the description should explain the whitelist mechanism, return values, and side effects. It fails to explain what distinguishes this from other player management tools in the extensive sibling list.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% (both parameters documented), establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds no additional semantics about the action enum values (add/remove/list/on/off/reload) or player parameter format beyond what the schema already states.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Manage the server whitelist' essentially restates the tool name with minimal expansion. While it identifies the resource (whitelist), it uses the vague verb 'manage' and fails to distinguish this from sibling player-management tools like ban_player or op_player, or clarify that whitelist restricts access to only listed players.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., ban_player for banning vs whitelisting for access control), when specific actions are appropriate (on/off vs add/remove), or prerequisites. The agent cannot determine from the description alone whether to use this for player moderation or server security.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure burden yet fails to state whether the ban is permanent, whether the player is immediately kicked, that it can be reversed via `pardon_player`, or required permission levels.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely terse at six words with zero redundancy; however, the brevity crosses into under-specification for a destructive moderation action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Moderate-complexity moderation tool with permanent consequences but no output schema, no annotations, and no behavioral details; insufficient for safe autonomous operation given the severity of the action.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 100% description coverage documenting 'Player name' and 'Ban reason'. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, warranting the baseline score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the specific action (ban) and resource (player), but fails to distinguish from sibling tool `kick_player` (temporary removal) or clarify that bans are permanent/reversible only via `pardon_player`, which is critical for correct tool selection.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance provided on when to use this versus `kick_player` for temporary disconnects, or any prerequisites like whether the player must be online. Zero alternative or exclusion criteria mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure but fails to specify whether changes are immediate or require restart, whether paths are validated, if settings persist across sessions, or what errors might occur. It only states what fields can be updated without operational context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficiently structured as a single sentence with a clear verb front-load and parenthetical enumeration. Every word contributes meaning, though the brevity is insufficient given the lack of annotations and output schema.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 8 parameters, zero annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to mention the backup_dir parameter, describe return behavior, or explain configuration validation. For a tool modifying executable paths and connection settings, this lack of operational detail leaves critical gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description lists most parameters (omitting 'backup_dir') and groups related RCON fields, but adds minimal semantic depth beyond the schema's own descriptions. It does not explain parameter relationships (e.g., that server_jar should exist within server_dir).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the action ('Update') and target ('MCP server configuration'), listing specific configurable aspects including server directory, JAR path, RCON settings, Java path, and JVM args. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this infrastructure-configuration tool from siblings like 'set_server_property' or 'set_server_properties_bulk' which likely configure in-game Minecraft properties rather than file paths and executables.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are prerequisites stated (e.g., whether the server must be stopped). The description implies usage through the parenthetical list but lacks 'when to use' or 'when not to use' instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of disclosure. While 'Delete' implies destruction, it fails to state that this operation is irreversible, permanent, or what error occurs if the backup does not exist. For a destructive tool, this is a significant safety gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely brief at four words. No fluff or redundancy. However, for a destructive operation requiring confirmation, this brevity comes at the cost of necessary safety context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Inadequate for a destructive tool with a mandatory confirmation parameter. Lacks explanation of the confirm parameter's purpose (safety guard), irreversibility warnings, or error conditions. No output schema exists to compensate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for both backup_name and confirm. The description adds no specific parameter guidance, but with complete schema documentation, the baseline score applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the verb (Delete) and resource (backup file). Distinguishes from sibling delete_world by specifying 'backup' rather than 'world', though it does not clarify relationship to restore_backup or list_backups.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like restore_backup, or prerequisites such as verifying the backup is no longer needed. The confirm parameter implies safety concerns but the description does not explain the confirmation pattern.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must carry full disclosure burden. It fails to mention idempotency (what happens if player isn't an operator?), persistence (does this last after restart?), offline player handling, or required permissions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise at six words. No redundancy, but arguably too terse given the complete absence of annotations and output schema—appropriate length for the sentence itself, but insufficient information density for the tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Minimal viability for a single-parameter mutation tool. Lacks behavioral context expected when annotations are absent (e.g., success indicators, side effects), though schema coverage compensates for parameter documentation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with 'player' described as 'Player name'. The description mentions 'a player' in context, adding minimal semantic depth beyond the schema's literal description. Baseline 3 appropriate given high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States specific action (revoke) and resource (operator status) clearly. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tool 'op_player' or clarify when to prefer this over 'kick_player' or 'ban_player'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites (e.g., verifying current operator status via list_ops), or failure conditions (e.g., targeting a non-existent player).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
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 only mentions the underlying '/setblock' command name but fails to explain the destructive nature of the operation, the behavior of different placement modes, or what occurs when coordinates are invalid/occupied.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The two-sentence description is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core action. The second sentence identifying the underlying command provides useful implementation context without excessive verbosity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 5-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description lacks critical context. It omits explanation of the placement modes, safety/destructive warnings, and success/failure return behaviors that would be necessary for safe agent operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all parameters adequately (coordinates, block ID examples, and mode enum values). The description mentions 'specific position' which aligns with the coordinate parameters but adds no additional syntax or format details beyond the comprehensive schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool places a single block at a specific position, using a specific verb and resource. The phrase 'specific position' implicitly distinguishes this from the sibling 'fill_blocks' tool (which likely handles areas), though it doesn't explicitly contrast them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'fill_blocks' or 'execute_command'. It also fails to explain when to use each mode enum value (destroy/keep/replace) or provide any selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
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 but fails to deliver. It states 'Change' implying mutation, but doesn't disclose persistence (does it survive restarts?), permissions required, side effects (inventory handling), or whether it affects currently offline players. Minimal disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single efficient sentence with zero waste. However, given the lack of annotations and output schema, it is arguably too terse—it could have utilized the space to disclose behavioral traits or usage constraints while remaining concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool affecting player state with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It fails to document execution requirements (permissions), scope limitations (online vs offline players), or return behavior. With 100% schema coverage but zero behavioral context, completeness is lacking.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters fully documented (target includes selector syntax examples, gamemode includes enum values). The description adds no semantic information beyond the schema, which is acceptable when schema coverage is complete, meeting the baseline of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a clear verb ('Change') and identifies the specific resource ('player's game mode'). While 'game mode' is distinct from 'game rules' (sibling set_game_rule) and other set_ operations, the description doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools, though the term is specific enough to avoid major confusion.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites (e.g., operator permissions), or constraints. It doesn't mention when not to use it or what happens if the target is offline.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. States the action but omits critical behavioral details: scope (affects entire world or specific players?), persistence (permanent or temporary?), default behavior when optional 'duration' is omitted, and whether this triggers immediately or has transition effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely brief two-sentence structure with no filler. Front-loaded with the action. Minor inefficiency in enumerating options already defined in schema enum, but remains readable and scannable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequate for a simple 2-parameter setter with complete schema documentation. However, lacks explanation of side effects, return behavior (if any), and the semantic implication of omitting the optional duration parameter, leaving operational gaps for the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 100% description coverage with 'Weather type' and 'Duration in seconds (optional)'. Description lists the enum values ('clear, rain, thunder') which duplicates schema information but adds no additional semantic context about parameter formats, defaults, or interdependencies. Baseline 3 appropriate for high-coverage schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clear verb ('Set') and resource ('weather') with specific enum values listed. However, lacks explicit domain context (Minecraft/simulation) that would fully distinguish it from conceptual siblings like set_time or set_block, though the specific weather options provide implicit differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to invoke this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use weather vs time controls), no mention of prerequisites, and no warnings about impact on gameplay or player experience.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Fails to disclose edge case behaviors: what happens if player inventory is full, if player is offline, if item ID is invalid, or whether this operation is logged/auditable. No mention of reversibility or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with zero waste. First sentence front-loads the core purpose; second provides concrete examples. Appropriate length for tool complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequate for a simple 3-parameter tool with full schema coverage, but gaps remain given lack of annotations and output schema. Missing critical context like online player requirement, inventory overflow behavior, and return value indication (success/failure).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 100% description coverage with examples already embedded in parameter descriptions (e.g., 'diamond' for item). Description repeats some examples ('diamond') but adds no additional semantic clarity or format constraints beyond what schema already provides. Baseline 3 appropriate for high-coverage schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States specific verb (Give) + resource (items) + target (player). Clearly distinguishes from siblings like apply_effect (status effects), set_block (blocks), and summon_entity (entities). However, does not explicitly differentiate from execute_command which could also perform item giving commands.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides examples of item IDs but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like execute_command. No mention of prerequisites such as player being online, permission requirements, or limitations (e.g., creative mode vs survival).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. States the action but fails to disclose if the player can immediately rejoin, if the action is logged, success/failure indicators, or required permission levels.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence that is appropriately front-loaded. Every word earns its place—no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration while conveying the core operation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequate for a simple 2-parameter tool with full schema coverage. However, given no output schema and no annotations, the description could improve completeness by mentioning success behavior or that the target player must be online.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% ('Player name', 'Kick reason message'), establishing baseline 3. Description adds confirmation that 'reason' is optional, but adds no syntax details, format constraints, or examples beyond what the schema provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clear verb ('Kick') and resource ('player') with scope ('from the server'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'ban_player' tool, which is a critical distinction for moderation actions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Mentions the 'reason' parameter is optional but provides no guidance on when to use kick versus ban_player, or prerequisites like player being online. No exclusion criteria or alternatives named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention side effects (e.g., spawning hostile mobs), return values (entity UUID or confirmation), error conditions (invalid coordinates), or whether this operation is reversible. The description only explains the primary intent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description consists of two efficient sentences: the first front-loads the core action, and the second provides concrete examples. There is no redundant or wasted text; every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the 100% schema coverage, the description appropriately omits redundant parameter documentation. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it should disclose return values or side effects, which it does not. It meets minimum viability for invocation but leaves operational context gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds example entity IDs ('skeleton', 'item_frame', 'armor_stand') that supplement but largely overlap with the schema's examples ('zombie', 'villager'). It does not add semantic depth to parameters like the NBT data format or coordinate system context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Summon') and resource ('entity') with scope ('at a position'), making the core purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'give_item' (which gives items to players) or 'set_block' (which places blocks), though the verb choice provides implicit distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 (e.g., 'give_item' for items vs 'summon_entity' for mobs), nor are prerequisites or error conditions mentioned. The description only states the action without contextual selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. 'Grant' implies a write/mutation operation and privilege escalation, but lacks details on what operator status entails (permissions scope), persistence, or safety implications.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence with no redundant words efficiently communicates the core action. However, extreme brevity sacrifices necessary behavioral context for a privileged operation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequate for a single-parameter tool with complete schema coverage, but minimal for a privileged operation. Does not explain operator privileges, prerequisites, or relationship to deop_player despite being a significant permission change.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 100% description coverage ('Player name'), so the schema documents the parameter fully. The description adds no semantic details beyond the schema, warranting the baseline score for high-coverage schemas.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clear verb 'Grant' and resource 'operator status' with clear target 'player'. However, does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tool deop_player or explain when to prefer this over other moderation tools like ban_player.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites (e.g., existing player), or side effects. Only states the action without context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only describes the intended effect (teleportation) without mentioning error conditions (e.g., invalid coordinates), side effects (e.g., velocity preservation), reversibility, or whether the operation is atomic/safe.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is exactly nine words in a single sentence. It is front-loaded with the action verb, mentions the target, and immediately specifies the two destination options without filler words. Every element earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 100% schema coverage, the description adequately covers the input semantics. However, for a 5-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, it omits behavioral context (error handling, game state impacts) and does not clarify whether coordinates and destination are mutually exclusive or if both can be provided.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds conceptual value by grouping x/y/z as 'coordinates' and identifying 'destination' as an entity alternative, but does not add syntax details, format examples, or semantic constraints (e.g., mutual exclusivity) beyond what the schema provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific verb (teleport) and resource (player or entity), and distinguishes the two mutually exclusive destination modes (coordinates vs. another entity). However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from the sibling 'execute_command' which could also perform teleportation via raw commands.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by specifying the two alternative destination patterns (coordinate triplet or destination entity), helping the agent understand parameter selection. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this dedicated tool versus alternatives like 'execute_command', and does not state prerequisites or constraints (e.g., that target must be online).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the RCON protocol and the leading-slash convention, but fails to mention safety characteristics (commands can be destructive), authentication requirements, or return value format.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely efficient two-sentence structure. Front-loaded with the core action, followed immediately by the critical syntax rule and compact, illustrative examples. No redundant words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequate for a single-parameter tool but insufficient given the high-risk nature of arbitrary command execution. Lacks safety warnings about destructive capabilities, error handling details, and guidance for selecting between this generic tool and the many specific alternatives available.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Despite 100% schema coverage, the description adds significant value through concrete examples ('time set 0', 'give @a diamond 64') that illustrate valid command syntax and semantics beyond the schema's generic string description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states it executes Minecraft server commands via RCON with specific transport protocol mentioned. However, it does not distinguish from the sibling tool 'execute_commands' (plural) or clarify when to use this generic tool versus specific task tools like 'set_time' or 'give_item'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides concrete examples of valid commands but offers no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites (e.g., RCON connection requirements), or warnings about when to prefer specific sibling tools over this generic execution interface.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Adds 'all available' indicating scope and 'optionally filtered' indicating behavior. However, fails to disclose return format, read-only nature (though implied by verb), or performance characteristics (e.g., if listing large backup sets is expensive).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, front-loaded with the core action. No redundant words. Efficiently communicates the essential operation and the single optional parameter in 68 characters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequate for a simple 1-parameter read operation with self-evident purpose in the Minecraft server context. Given no output schema exists,-description could have noted what backup metadata is returned (filename, date, size), but absence is acceptable given low complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with clear description 'Filter by world name (optional)'. Description mirrors this with 'optionally filtered by world name' but adds no additional semantic value—no format constraints, examples, or validation details beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clear verb 'List' and resource 'world backups'. Specifies scope ('all available') and filtering capability. However, lacks explicit differentiation from siblings like 'create_backup' or 'restore_backup' that would clarify this is view-only.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Mentions optional filtering ('optionally filtered by world name') but provides no guidance on when to use this versus 'restore_backup', 'delete_backup', or 'create_backup'. No prerequisites or conditions mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the data source ('ops.json') which implies file-system read behavior, but lacks details on error handling (missing file), return format, or required permissions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, seven words, front-loaded with action verb. Every word serves a purpose; no extraneous content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema exists and this is a read operation with zero parameters, the description adequately identifies the data source but fails to describe the return value structure (e.g., array of objects with usernames/levels) which would help the agent consume the result.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Zero parameters present per schema, which per guidelines warrants a baseline score of 4. The description does not need to compensate for missing schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clear verb 'List' and specific resource 'server operators from ops.json'. The mention of 'ops.json' implicitly distinguishes from sibling 'list_players', though it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use versus alternatives like 'list_players', or prerequisites for viewing operators. Description states what it does but not when to prefer it over siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden. It reveals the RCON transport mechanism but omits critical behavioral details: whether changes are persistent, immediate effect vs restart-required, permission requirements, or error handling behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence front-loads the action and mechanism; the second provides concrete examples. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequate for a simple 2-parameter setter with no output schema. The mechanism (RCON) and domain examples provide sufficient context for invocation, but the absence of persistence guarantees, error behavior, or differentiation from execute_command leaves noticeable gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
While the schema has 100% description coverage, the description adds value by listing concrete examples of game rules (doDaylightCycle, keepInventory, etc.), grounding the agent in the Minecraft domain. However, it does not clarify value format differences between boolean and integer rules.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action (Set), resource (game rule value), and mechanism (via RCON). However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tool get_game_rules or clarify that this is the write counterpart to that read operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that execute_command could also set game rules, or that get_game_rules should be used to read current values before setting.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
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 lists the three specific components being checked, implying a read-only validation operation. However, it fails to explicitly confirm this is safe to run anytime, doesn't describe the return value format (boolean vs detailed report), and doesn't explain the failure mode (exception vs false return).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. The validation targets (directory, JAR, EULA) are specifically enumerated rather than using vague generalities, maximizing information density.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (zero parameters) and lack of output schema, the description adequately covers the scope of validation. However, it omits important contextual information such as the return structure and whether this check is a prerequisite for other server operations, leaving operational gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool accepts zero parameters. According to the evaluation baseline, tools with zero parameters receive a baseline score of 4. The description appropriately reflects the parameter-less nature of the validation check.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Check' and identifies the exact resources being validated: server directory, JAR file, and EULA. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'server_status' (runtime monitoring) and 'setup_world' (world creation). However, it doesn't explicitly clarify if this validates preconditions before starting the server or post-configuration verification.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool relative to alternatives. It doesn't mention whether this should be run before 'start_server', after 'setup_world', or as a troubleshooting diagnostic, nor does it indicate what action to take if validation fails.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It fails to disclose that this modifies game state, whether it overwrites existing effects or stacks with them, failure modes (e.g., invalid effect ID), or that it requires specific server privileges to execute.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with zero waste. The first states the core purpose; the second provides immediately useful examples. Every word earns its place and it is appropriately front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequate but minimal. With 100% schema coverage and simple parameter types, the tool is usable. However, given no output schema and no annotations, the description should ideally address effect stacking behavior, offline player handling, or success confirmation—leaving clear gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing five concrete effect examples beyond the schema's two parenthetical examples, helping the agent infer valid effect ID formats and common use cases.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Apply') + resource ('status effect') + target ('player'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like give_item (physical items) or ban_player (moderation). The examples further clarify the specific domain of Minecraft potion/effect mechanics.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites (e.g., requiring OP permissions), or constraints (e.g., target must be online). It merely states what the tool does, not when to select it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full disclosure burden. Words 'Get' and 'monitoring' imply read-only safety, but description does not explicitly confirm this is non-destructive, disclose return format (string vs array), or mention if logs are consumed/cleared upon retrieval.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two efficient sentences. First states action and resource, second provides use-case context. No repetition of name/tautology, no extraneous words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequate for a simple single-parameter tool, but lacks compensation for missing output schema (return format unspecified) and missing annotations (safety characteristics not confirmed). Description could explicitly state this retrieves without modifying server state.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% (lines parameter fully documented with constraints). Description does not add parameter semantics beyond schema, but baseline 3 is appropriate given schema completeness.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States specific verb ('Get') and resource ('server console output') clearly. Mentions 'recent' implying scoping. However, does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like 'execute_command' which also returns output, or clarify relationship to 'server_status'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides implied usage context via 'Useful for debugging startup issues or monitoring activity,' indicating when to use. However, lacks explicit when-not guidance, prerequisites (e.g., server must be running?), or named alternatives for different log retrieval scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure burden. It successfully enumerates return fields, clarifying what 'status' encompasses. However, it lacks operational context: no mention of whether this requires authentication, if it's safe to poll frequently, or whether the server must be running to return data.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, front-loaded with action verb, immediately followed by specific data points returned. No filler words or redundant phrases.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Absence of output schema means description should document return values; it satisfies this by listing the four specific fields returned. For a simple read-only status tool, this is reasonably complete, though explicit mention of response structure (object vs string) would improve it further.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Zero parameters presents a baseline of 4. The description correctly implies no filtering or input is needed to retrieve the full status snapshot.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clear verb 'Get' + resource 'server status' with specific enumerated fields (running state, uptime, online players, MOTD). Implicitly distinguishes from configuration getters like 'get_server_properties' by emphasizing runtime metrics, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like 'validate_server'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives. Given siblings include 'validate_server', 'get_server_properties', and 'get_world_info', the description should specify this retrieves live runtime metrics versus configuration, validation, or world-specific data.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. Description omits critical behavioral details for a bulk config mutation: whether changes are atomic, require server restart, validate property keys, or persist immediately. 'Configuring a new server' implies pre-startup use but doesn't clarify runtime behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, zero waste. First sentence establishes core purpose with 'bulk' qualifier; second provides concrete usage context. Well front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequate for parameter definition given 100% schema coverage, but lacking behavioral disclosure expected for a mutation tool with no annotations or output schema. Should clarify restart requirements and validation behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 100% coverage with clear example. Description adds domain context ('server.properties', 'world generation settings') but largely relies on schema's existing example (gamemode, difficulty). Baseline 3 appropriate when schema carries definition.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clear specific verb 'Set' + resource 'server.properties' + scope 'multiple at once'. The 'bulk' in the name and 'multiple' in description clearly distinguishes from sibling tool 'set_server_property' (singular).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides contextual usage hints ('Useful for configuring a new server or changing world generation settings') but lacks explicit when-not guidance or comparison to singular alternative 'set_server_property'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses the restart requirement (major behavioral trait). Missing: validation behavior (does it check valid keys/values?), error conditions, whether changes are persistent across sessions, or atomicity guarantees.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three tight sentences: purpose, critical constraint, examples. No redundancy, logically sequenced (action → consequence → reference). Front-loaded with the core verb.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequate for a simple 2-parameter setter, with good examples. Gaps: no mention of return value or success confirmation (particularly important given no output schema), and no error scenarios (e.g., invalid property keys).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 100% coverage with basic descriptions. Description adds significant semantic value by enumerating common properties (gamemode, difficulty, level-seed, etc.), giving users concrete valid inputs for the 'key' parameter beyond the generic schema description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clear specific action: 'Set a server.properties value' identifies the exact file/resource. The restart requirement implicitly distinguishes from runtime setters like set_gamemode. However, it lacks explicit contrast with set_server_properties_bulk (singular vs plural scope) which could confuse users.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides critical operational constraint: 'server must be restarted for changes to take effect.' However, fails to explicitly guide against alternatives (e.g., when to use set_server_properties_bulk for batch updates vs individual calls, or that set_gamemode applies immediately without restart).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses transport mechanism (RCON) and execution order (sequential) which are critical behavioral traits. However, given no annotations, it omits important safety context such as destructive potential, error handling (what happens if command N fails), or atomicity guarantees.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two well-constructed sentences with zero waste: first defines the action, second provides usage context. Front-loaded with the core mechanism (RCON) and appropriately scoped.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequate for a single-parameter tool with complete schema coverage. Mentions key technical context (RCON, sequential execution) and use cases. Minor gap: could clarify return values or error behavior given lack of output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Despite 100% schema coverage (baseline 3), adds valuable semantic context by illustrating what the commands array represents ('batch operations like building structures or setting up game scenarios'), helping the agent understand intent beyond raw syntax.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clear verb ('Execute') + resource ('Minecraft commands') + mechanism ('via RCON'). Distinguishes from sibling 'execute_command' by emphasizing 'multiple' and 'sequentially', though it doesn't explicitly name the singular alternative.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides positive usage guidance ('Useful for batch operations like building structures or setting up game scenarios') indicating when to use it, but lacks negative guidance (when to use singular execute_command instead) or explicit alternative references.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It successfully indicates the scope (online players only, not offline) and mentions the max player count return value, but omits safety indicators (read-only status), permission requirements, or whether results are real-time vs cached.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. Key information (action, target resource, and secondary output) is front-loaded and immediately comprehensible.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a simple read operation with no input parameters and no output schema, the description adequately compensates by specifying the two data points returned (current player list and max capacity). A brief note on output format would strengthen it further.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, establishing a baseline score of 4 per evaluation rules. The description appropriately does not introduce phantom parameters and correctly implies no filtering capabilities are available.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists 'all online players' and the 'server's max player count' using specific verbs and resources. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_ops (which lists operators), though the specificity of 'online players' provides implicit distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides implied usage through the specific scope ('online players' vs operators or worlds), but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus list_ops or other list commands, and does not mention prerequisites like server connectivity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Successfully identifies data source (level.dat) and specific extracted fields. However, lacks explicit read-only safety confirmation, return format specification (JSON object?), or error conditions (world not found?).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single dense sentence, front-loaded action verb. Every clause serves purpose: operation (Get), scope (detailed information), source (level.dat file), and specific return values listed. No redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple 1-parameter read tool, reasonably complete despite missing output schema. Description compensates by enumerating specific return values (seed, spawn, etc.). Would benefit from mentioning return format or structure.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with clear description of world_name parameter ('World folder name'). Description implies the target world but does not add parameter-specific guidance beyond schema. Baseline 3 appropriate for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Excellent specificity: verb 'Get' + resource 'world...level.dat file' + specific attributes (seed, spawn point, game type, version). Clearly distinguishes from sibling list_worlds (simple listing) by specifying detailed metadata extraction from the level.dat data file.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Lacks explicit when-to-use guidance or explicit alternatives comparison. However, the specificity of 'from its level.dat file' and enumeration of returned fields provides implicit context that this is for deep metadata inspection versus simple listing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. States the mutation (removing a ban) but omits behavioral details like error conditions (what happens if player isn't banned?), reversibility, or timing. Adequate but minimal for a simple single-parameter tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise at 6 words. Front-loaded with action verb, zero redundancy or filler. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Appropriate for low complexity (1 param, 100% schema coverage, no output schema). Description sufficiently captures the core operation, though it could strengthen completeness by explicitly noting the inverse relationship with ban_player or error handling for non-banned players.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% (player: 'Player name'), establishing baseline 3. Description implies the player parameter is the subject of the pardon action, but doesn't add syntax, format requirements, or examples beyond what the schema provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clear specific verb (Remove) + resource (ban) + target (player). Clearly distinguishes from sibling 'ban_player' (adds ban) and 'kick_player' (temporary removal) via the specific term 'pardon'/'ban'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides implied usage through the action verb, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives (e.g., 'Use when you need to unban a player previously banned by ban_player') or prerequisites (e.g., player must currently be banned).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the RCON transport method and server state dependency, but omits details about return format, error conditions, or read-only safety characteristics that would help an agent predict outcomes.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with zero waste: the first front-loads the action and scope, the second provides a critical prerequisite. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While the description adequately covers the invocation requirements for this zero-parameter tool, it lacks return value documentation. Given the absence of an output schema, mentioning the expected structure (e.g., key-value pairs) would have completed the picture.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema contains zero parameters, which per guidelines warrants a baseline score of 4. The description appropriately does not invent parameter documentation where none exist.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('game rules for the current world'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling 'set_game_rule'. It also specifies the transport mechanism ('via RCON'), adding precise operational context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description states the prerequisite 'Server must be running,' which guides when the tool can be invoked. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives like 'set_game_rule' or what to do if the server is offline.
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?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Effectively discloses deferred effect (requires restart) and destructive prerequisite (old world deletion/renaming). Missing minor details like persistence guarantees or validation behavior, but covers main operational constraints well.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences with logical flow: purpose → scope → operational constraints. No redundant phrases. Sentence 2 enumerates key parameters which aids quick scanning despite schema completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequate for a 9-parameter configuration tool. Explains the file being modified (server.properties), the deferred generation behavior, and world replacement requirements. No output schema exists, but description covers the essential behavioral contract.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline applies. Description mentions 'level name, seed, world type' which correspond to actual parameters, but adds no syntax, format, or dependency information beyond what's in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clear verb-resource combination ('Configure server.properties for generating a new world'). Specific scope distinguishes it from generic property setters like set_server_property, though it doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states critical prerequisite: 'The server must be restarted (with the old world deleted or renamed) to generate the new world.' This explains when effects take place and implies workflow. Could be improved by explicitly referencing delete_world or restart_server siblings.
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?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses the hard limit (32,768 blocks) and identifies underlying mechanism ('/fill command'). Could improve by noting coordinate ordering flexibility or what happens when exceeding the limit.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences, zero waste: action statement, implementation detail, operational limit. Perfectly front-loaded with the core operation. No redundant information or verbose explanations.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Appropriate for a 3D region operation with 8 parameters. With full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essential constraint (block limit) and command context. Could mention that 'mode' affects existing blocks, but schema handles parameter details adequately.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 100% description coverage (Start/End X/Y/Z, Block ID, Fill mode), so baseline 3 applies. Description adds minimal semantic value beyond schema, though 'region' subtly reinforces that coordinate pairs define a spatial volume.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Excellent specificity: 'Fill a region with blocks' provides clear verb (fill) and resource (region/blocks). The phrase 'region' effectively distinguishes this from the sibling tool 'set_block' (implied single block operation). Mentioning '/fill command' anchors it to Minecraft semantics.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides critical constraint 'Max 32,768 blocks per operation' which informs usage limits. However, lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this over 'set_block' or other building tools, and doesn't mention prerequisites like coordinate system knowledge.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses return format ('key-value pairs') and content quality ('descriptions for known settings'), implying some settings may be undocumented. However, it lacks safety confirmation, error behavior, or performance characteristics.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with zero waste: first declares operation (read settings), second declares return structure. Information is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a parameterless getter tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema exists, the description compensates by explaining return values ('key-value pairs with descriptions'). For a simple read-only tool with no parameters, this is complete, though it could briefly mention this applies to the Minecraft server context implied by siblings.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Zero parameters present. Per calibration rules, 0 params equals baseline 4. The input schema is empty object, requiring no additional semantic explanation in the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses specific verb 'Read' targeting 'server.properties settings', clearly distinguishing from siblings 'set_server_property' and 'set_server_properties_bulk' which perform write operations. The scope 'all' clarifies it retrieves the complete configuration.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
While the verb 'Read' implicitly signals this is a retrieval operation versus the 'set' siblings, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this (e.g., before modifying properties) or direct reference to sibling alternatives like set_server_property.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It successfully specifies that world 'sizes' are included in the output, but does not explicitly confirm read-only safety, describe the output format (array/object), or mention behavior when no worlds exist.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence with zero waste. Every word earns its place: action verb ('List'), scope ('all'), resource ('Minecraft worlds'), location ('server directory'), and return fields ('sizes'). Perfectly front-loaded and sized for a parameterless tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a parameterless discovery tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the essential operation. It would benefit from mentioning the output structure (list/array format) or confirming it returns an empty list versus error when no worlds exist, but is sufficient for invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Zero parameters are required, which per the guidelines establishes a baseline score of 4. The description appropriately focuses on the operation behavior rather than inventing parameter documentation where none exist in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('List'), clear resource ('Minecraft worlds'), and scope ('in the server directory with their sizes'). It contextually distinguishes from siblings like list_players, list_backups, and get_world_info (singular) by emphasizing 'all' worlds and including size metadata.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied by the scope ('all' worlds for discovery/enumeration), but there is no explicit 'when to use' guidance contrasting it with get_world_info (for single world details) or setup_world. No prerequisites or error conditions are mentioned.
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 and successfully discloses two key behavioral traits: RCON configuration side effects ('Ensures RCON is enabled') and blocking/sync nature ('waits for startup completion'). However, it omits idempotency details (what happens if server is already running) and error conditions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with zero waste. The primary action is front-loaded ('Start...'), followed by behavioral modifiers. Every word serves the definition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the single parameter and lack of output schema, the description adequately covers the operation's purpose and side effects. A mention of prerequisites or failure modes (e.g., port conflicts) would complete it, but the current content is sufficient for invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with the accept_eula parameter fully documented. The description doesn't redundantly describe the parameter, which is acceptable when the schema carries the load. Baseline score applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a specific verb ('Start') and resource ('Minecraft Java Edition server'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like restart_server, stop_server, and setup_world. It specifies the exact edition (Java) to avoid confusion with Bedrock.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'waits for startup completion' provides important usage context that this is a blocking operation, but the description lacks explicit contrast with restart_server or prerequisites (e.g., whether setup_world must be run first).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the sequential nature (stop then start) and implies configuration changes require restart to take effect. However, lacks critical behavioral details: downtime duration, graceful vs. forceful termination, prerequisites (server must be running?), and error handling if already stopped.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two compact sentences with zero redundancy. First sentence defines the operation, second provides usage context. Front-loaded with the most critical information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description adequately covers the primary happy-path scenario. However, significant gaps remain regarding edge cases (server already stopped, startup failures) and return value expectations, which are critical for a mutation tool without structured safety hints.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema contains zero parameters (empty object). With no parameters to document, baseline score per rubric is 4. Description appropriately focuses on behavior rather than inventing parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Excellent specificity with clear verb (restart), resource (Minecraft server), and mechanism clarification (stop then start). The parenthetical explicitly distinguishes this from siblings start_server and stop_server.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides clear when-to-use guidance ('Useful after configuration changes'), giving the agent a specific trigger condition. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives, though the mechanism '(stop then start)' implicitly signals not to use for partial operations.
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?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses output format (tar.gz), concurrency safety (safe while running), and implementation mechanism (save-off/save-on). Missing persistence details such as backup location/naming conventions and return value specifics, but covers critical runtime safety behavior thoroughly.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with zero waste. First sentence establishes purpose and format (tar.gz), second provides safety assurance and mechanism. Perfectly front-loaded with essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Appropriately complete for a single-parameter backup tool without output schema. Captures essential behavioral context (format, safety, mechanism) that prevents dangerous misuse during server runtime. Minor gap regarding backup storage location or return path, but sufficient for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% with world_name parameter fully documented in schema ('World folder name to backup'). Description adds no parameter-specific semantics, which is acceptable given baseline 3 for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Specific verb 'Create' + resource 'backup' + format 'tar.gz' + target 'world'. Clearly distinguishes from siblings restore_backup, delete_backup, and list_backups by specifying creation action and compressed format.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states 'Safe to use while the server is running', addressing critical concurrency concerns for Minecraft server operations. Mentions implementation mechanism (save-off/save-on) that enables this safety, though does not explicitly contrast with restore_backup alternative.
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?
No annotations provided, so description carries full disclosure burden. It adds valuable behavioral context by mapping preset keywords to exact tick values (day=1000, etc.), explaining the underlying numeric system. Could improve by noting if change is immediate, affects all worlds/players, or persists after restart.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two compact sentences with zero waste. First sentence establishes operation, second provides reference data (preset mappings). Perfectly front-loaded and appropriately sized for a single-parameter tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Complete for a simple setter with one parameter and 100% schema coverage. The preset enumeration provides sufficient input documentation. Minor gap: doesn't mention immediate effect scope (single world vs. global) or output behavior, but adequate given tool simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 100% coverage, but description adds crucial semantic enrichment: it enumerates all six valid preset strings and maps them to specific numeric tick values. This transforms abstract 'time value' into concrete actionable values, significantly augmenting the schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Excellent: specific verb 'Set' + resource 'world time' clearly identifies the operation. Distinct from siblings like set_weather, set_gamemode, set_block through precise resource naming. The scope is immediately clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides implied usage by documenting preset options versus raw tick values, helping users choose input formats. However, lacks explicit guidance on when to call this vs. other state-modification tools, or prerequisites like server running status.
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?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses critical behavioral traits: file-level modification (level.dat) and state precondition (server stopped). Does not mention side effects (e.g., affects only new players, existing logout positions) or failure modes, but covers primary safety concerns.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, zero waste. First sentence delivers purpose and mechanism; second delivers critical prerequisite. Information density is optimal with no filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 100% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately covers the critical domain-specific constraint (server stopped) and persistence mechanism. Could mention spawn behavior for existing players, but sufficient for safe invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for all 4 parameters. Description adds minimal semantic value beyond schema (mentions level.dat which contextualizes world_name), but baseline 3 is appropriate when schema documentation is comprehensive.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clear specific verb (Set), resource (world spawn point), and mechanism (modifying level.dat). Distinguishes from siblings like 'teleport' (player movement) and 'set_block' (block placement) by specifying this is persistent world configuration via file modification.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit critical constraint: 'The server must be stopped' (exclusion criterion). Lacks explicit alternatives (e.g., 'use execute_command for temporary spawn changes'), but the stopped-server warning provides essential safety context.
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 full disclosure burden. It successfully communicates irreversible destruction, server state requirement, and suggests backup mitigation. Minor gap: doesn't describe failure mode if server is running or return value format.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Four sentences, each earning its place: purpose declaration, risk warning, mitigation suggestion, and prerequisite. Front-loaded with action. No redundancy or waste despite handling a destructive operation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 100% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description adequately covers critical safety and operational requirements (irreversibility, server state, backups). Appropriately complete for a 2-parameter destructive tool, though output description is absent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so schema already fully documents both parameters. The description adds implicit context that 'world_name' refers to the folder being deleted, but doesn't extend beyond schema definitions for parameter syntax or semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses specific verb 'Delete' with resource 'world folder', clearly distinguishing from sibling delete_backup (which deletes backups, not worlds). The scope is immediately clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states prerequisite 'The server must be stopped', references sibling tool create_backup ('Consider creating a backup first'), and warns about irreversibility. Provides clear when-to-use and safety alternatives.
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, description carries full disclosure burden. It successfully reveals: (1) destructive overwrite behavior, (2) automatic safety backup creation as mitigation, and (3) hard prerequisite of stopped server. Missing minor details like safety backup naming convention or post-restore steps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences with zero waste: purpose declaration, safety behavior disclosure, and prerequisite warning. Information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place. Appropriate density for a destructive operation tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 100% schema coverage and no output schema, description adequately covers the critical safety behaviors and prerequisites for this complex destructive operation. Minor gap: does not indicate success indicators or whether server restart is needed after restoration.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Despite 100% schema coverage (baseline 3), description adds semantic value by contextualizing why 'confirm' parameter exists—it's a destructive overwrite operation requiring explicit confirmation, and why 'backup_name' matters—it triggers the safety backup workflow before the destructive action.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description opens with specific verb 'Restore' + resource 'world from a backup', clearly distinguishing from siblings like create_backup, delete_backup, or list_backups. The additional clause about 'safety backup' and 'overwriting' further clarifies the scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states critical prerequisite 'The server MUST be stopped first', establishing when the tool can be used. Implies when not to use (while server running), though it does not explicitly name the sibling stop_server tool as the required precursor.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Excellent disclosure of implementation details and failure modes: specifies RCON 'stop' as primary method, stdin fallback, and SIGKILL escalation after 30s timeout. Since no annotations exist, this description carries the full burden of explaining the destructive escalation chain.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, front-loaded with purpose ('Gracefully stop'), followed by mechanism. No redundant words; dense information (89 characters) covering intent, implementation, and timeout behavior.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Complete for a zero-parameter action tool. Describes the operation mechanism sufficiently for invocation. No output schema exists; description hints at async nature via timeout but doesn't detail return values, which is acceptable given the simple action paradigm.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Baseline score for zero parameters per rubric. Schema is empty object with 100% coverage trivially. No parameter documentation needed or provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States specific action ('Gracefully stop') and target resource ('Minecraft server'). Implicitly distinguishes from sibling 'restart_server' (which implies stop+start cycle) and 'start_server' by focusing solely on termination.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides implicit usage through the specific verb 'stop', but lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this over 'restart_server' or prerequisites (e.g., warning players). No 'when-not' or alternative recommendations stated.
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
Copy to your README.md:
Score Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Latest Blog Posts
- Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)By Om-Shree-0709 on .mcpAgent IdentityOAuth 2.1
- Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an InternBy Om-Shree-0709 on .Agent IdentityMCP SecurityOAuth Delegation
- Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)By Om-Shree-0709 on .Agentic AiPrompt InjectionWebAssembly
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/tamo2918/Minecraft-Server-MCP'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server