search_itemsFind matching Minecraft item IDs from partial IDs or display names to resolve vague item names for recipe queries. Returns ID candidates and works without a running game.
按名称或 id 搜索物品，返回匹配的 id 列表。用户说「铁锭」「iron」这类模糊说法时，用它确定准确的物品 id，再拿去调配方查询工具。不需要游戏在运行。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | 搜索词，可以是 id 的一部分（如 iron_ingot）或显示名（如 铁锭） |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the tool returns a list of matching ids and does not require the game to be running, but it omits limits, result ordering, empty-result behavior, and any safety or permission context.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the usage workflow and an operational fact. Every sentence adds useful information without padding.
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?
For a simple read-only lookup with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it explains purpose, workflow, return shape, and that the game need not be running. The missing detail about the limit parameter and result-size behavior keeps it from a 5.
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 only 50%: the query parameter is documented in the schema, while limit is undocumented. The description repeats the schema's query semantics (name or id) but says nothing about the limit parameter or result-size behavior, leaving a real 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 states a specific verb and resource: search items by name or id and return matching id list. It clearly distinguishes this lookup tool from the recipe-query siblings by explaining it is used first to resolve fuzzy names into exact ids.
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?
It gives a concrete when-to-use scenario: when the user says something vague like 「铁锭」 or 「iron」, use this tool to resolve the exact item id before calling recipe tools. It does not explicitly name which alternative sibling to avoid or cover when-not-to-use cases, so it falls short of a full 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.