Builds stepped, shrinking rectangular layers from a chosen height over an x/z footprint, useful for roofs and tiered structures.
A stepped pyramid on the rectangle x1..x2, z1..z2 starting at height y, one smaller on every side each layer up. Also good for a stepped roof.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| y | Yes | ||
| x1 | Yes | ||
| x2 | Yes | ||
| z1 | Yes | ||
| z2 | Yes | ||
| block | Yes | ||
| design | Yes | ||
| hollow | No |
| 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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It says nothing about whether existing blocks are overwritten, what 'hollow' changes structurally, how 'block' and 'design' affect placement, or any limits. For a mutation tool this is a substantial gap.
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?
Two tight sentences that front-load the geometry definition before the secondary roof-use note. No filler, though the roof sentence is slightly tangential and not essential to correct invocation.
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 covers return values, and the core footprint/height geometry is explained. But for an 8-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and zero schema coverage, the unexplained block/design/hollow parameters leave the definition only minimally sufficient.
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% across 8 parameters. The description clarifies x1..x2 and z1..z2 as the footprint and y as the starting height, but leaves block, design, and hollow entirely unexplained, so half the required surface is undocumented in both schema and prose.
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 specifies the exact geometric output (a stepped pyramid over a rectangular footprint from height y, tapering one block per side per layer). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like box, cylinder, and sphere. It lacks an explicit verb like 'builds' but the shape is unambiguous.
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?
'Also good for a stepped roof' gives one contextual use case, hinting at when the shape is appropriate. However, there is no guidance on when to prefer box or cylinder instead, no prerequisites, and no exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.