Starts an empty Minecraft build blueprint with a chosen ID and palette, giving an agent a base to add shapes, edits, previews, and materials.
Starts an empty design named design (lowercase letters, digits, _ . -; it becomes the blueprint id) with a palette.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| design | Yes | ||
| palette | No | oak |
| 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?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the naming charset and that the name becomes the blueprint id, which is useful. It is silent on the important behavioral question of what happens if a design with that name already exists (error vs. overwrite) and on palette validity.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the parenthetical constraint is placed right after the parameter it constrains. Slightly dense, but nothing is wasted.
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?
An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, which helps. Still, for a creation tool with zero annotation coverage the description omits collision behavior, palette valid values, and relationship to sibling tools, leaving real gaps.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does add real meaning for `design` (lowercase letters, digits, _ . -; becomes the blueprint id), but `palette` gets no semantics at all beyond the schema's default of 'oak' — valid values and their source are unexplained.
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 verb+resource pair ("Starts an empty design") is specific and distinguishes it from read-oriented siblings like list_designs and open_schematic. It stops short of explicitly naming which sibling to use when creating vs. opening a design, so a 4 rather than a 5.
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?
Usage is only implied: 'starts an empty design' suggests the creation path, but the description never says when to pick this over open_schematic or how it relates to set_palette / palettes. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.