Retrieve tiered block sets that map each build role to a block, so an AI agent can choose materials and plan Minecraft builds before refining or exporting schematics.
The palettes, by tier, with the block each role builds as.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| 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, yet it never says whether this is a read-only lookup, whether it reflects current state, or how much data is returned. The phrase "the block each role builds as" marginally implies preset/configuration data, but that is inference, not disclosure.
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?
It is short and front-loaded, so nothing is wasted, but it is a sentence fragment rather than a self-contained statement of purpose. Brevity here comes at the cost of clarity rather than from efficiency.
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 output schema covers return values, so the description needn't explain them. However, for a zero-parameter query tool with no annotations, the description still leaves the core question open: what does calling it do? That gap is not compensated elsewhere.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. No parameter information is missing or needed.
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 palettes, by tier, with the block each role builds as" is a noun phrase restating the tool name; there is no verb indicating what the tool does (list, look up, return). It hints at content structure (tier grouping, role-to-block mapping) but never states the operation, and does nothing to separate it from siblings like materials or set_palette.
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?
No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative is mentioned. An agent has no signal whether this is the way to discover palette data versus calling materials or open_schematic.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.