Skip to main content
Glama

validate_server

Check if the Minecraft server directory, JAR file, and EULA are properly configured to ensure the server starts correctly.

Instructions

Check if the server directory, JAR file, and EULA are properly configured.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • The `validate_server` tool handler, which invokes `manager.validate()` and returns a summary of the server configuration and validation status.
    server.tool(
      "validate_server",
      "Check if the server directory, JAR file, and EULA are properly configured.",
      {},
      async () => {
        const { valid, errors } = manager.validate();
        const config = manager.getConfig();
        const lines = [
          `Server Directory: ${manager.getServerDir()}`,
          `Server JAR: ${manager.getServerJarPath()}`,
          `RCON: ${config.rconHost}:${config.rconPort}`,
          `Java: ${config.javaPath}`,
          `JVM Args: ${config.jvmArgs.join(" ")}`,
          ``,
          valid ? "✅ All checks passed." : `❌ Issues found:\n${errors.map((e) => `  - ${e}`).join("\n")}`,
        ];
        return { content: [{ type: "text", text: lines.join("\n") }] };
      }
    );
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.

Conciseness5/5

Is 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.

Completeness3/5

Given 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.

Parameters4/5

Does 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.

Purpose4/5

Does 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 Guidelines2/5

Does 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.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

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

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/tamo2918/Minecraft-Server-MCP'

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