Generate a ball centered at X, Y, Z with a set radius; optionally keep only the top dome or bottom bowl and make it hollow for Minecraft builds.
A ball centred on x, y, z. half "top" keeps the upper half (a dome), "bottom" the lower (a bowl).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x | Yes | ||
| y | Yes | ||
| z | Yes | ||
| half | No | ||
| block | Yes | ||
| design | Yes | ||
| hollow | No | ||
| radius | 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?
Since no annotations are provided, the description performs the function of behavioral transparency by detailing the structural behavior of the 'half' parameter, specifically defining 'top' as a dome and 'bottom' as a bowl.
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 highly concise, using only two sentences to define the object's core geometry and the structural constraint of the 'half' parameter 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 description is incomplete because it only addresses positioning and the structural type ('half'), omitting contextual clues for other required parameters like 'design', 'block', or 'hollow'. It fails to provide the necessary comparison or usage context needed to select this tool over similar geometry functions.
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?
Given the 0% schema description coverage, the description adds crucial meaning to the spatial parameters (x, y, z) and structural parameter ('half'), which is vital for the agent's understanding of the required inputs.
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 clearly defines the resource as a ball centered at specific coordinates (x, y, z). However, it lacks a strong active verb and fails to distinguish the sphere from other geometric shapes listed among its siblings.
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?
There is zero guidance on when to use the sphere tool versus alternatives like 'cylinder' or 'box'. It only addresses a specific feature of the 'half' parameter.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.