Fills a rectangular volume between two corner coordinates in solid, hollow shell, walls-only, or frame mode for Minecraft schematic builds.
Fills a box between two corners: mode solid, shell (six faces, hollow inside), walls (four sides, no floor or roof) or frame (the twelve edges).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x1 | Yes | ||
| x2 | Yes | ||
| y1 | Yes | ||
| y2 | Yes | ||
| z1 | Yes | ||
| z2 | Yes | ||
| mode | No | solid | |
| block | Yes | ||
| design | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does usefully explain hollow shell, open walls, and edge frame geometry, but it does not disclose whether existing blocks are overwritten, permissions needed, or other mutation 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It packs the core operation and all mode definitions efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has nine parameters, eight required, no annotations, and 0% schema description coverage. Although an output schema exists and return values need not be explained, the description omits critical input semantics and mutation behavior, so it is not complete enough for confident invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and nine parameters exist, yet the description only explains the optional mode values. The required coordinates, block material, and target design are left undocumented, so it does not compensate for the schema gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Fills a box between two corners,' and it clarifies the result via four fill modes. It does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings like cylinder, sphere, or line, but the operation is still clear from the name and text.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains the available modes but does not say when to use this tool rather than alternatives such as line, cylinder, sphere, replace, or copy. There is no guidance on exclusions or prerequisites, leaving tool selection to inference from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.