minecraft-ai-mcp

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes with clear descriptions, though some overlap exists between actions like 'collect_block' (navigate+dig) and coordinates, and 'use_item' vs 'activate_block'. Overall, an agent can usually tell tools apart.
Naming Consistency4/5
Tool names mostly follow a snake_case verb_noun pattern (e.g., get_inventory, place_block), but some are single-word verbs (connect, jump, eat, sleep, wake), creating a slight inconsistency. The pattern is still predictable and readable.
Tool Count2/5
At 29 tools, the server exceeds the 25+ threshold and feels heavy for an agent to parse. While each tool serves a specific Minecraft action, the large number introduces unnecessary selection complexity.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers core Minecraft operations: movement, combat, inventory, crafting, chat, and block interaction. Missing features include targeted combat or advanced inventory management, but these are minor gaps for a general-purpose bot.
Average 3.4/5 across 29 of 29 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on January 24, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is failing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden, but it only says 'attack' without explaining consequences, whether the attack is continuous or a single hit, damage dealt, or how it can be stopped. This is a significant gap for an action that could be destructive or persistent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, using four words with no unnecessary filler. It is front-loaded and immediately comprehensible, though its brevity may omit necessary behavioral context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has a simple schema and no output schema, so the description must provide sufficient context. However, it omits key behavioral details such as the nature of the attack (single vs. continuous), range, and the existence of 'stop_attack' as a counterpart. The description is too sparse for an agent to fully understand how to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and the schema already describes 'entityType' with examples. The description adds the qualifier 'nearby', which implies range limitation, but does not add meaningful syntax or format details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Attack' with the resource 'nearby entity', clearly stating the tool's action. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'dig_block' and 'place_block', though it doesn't differentiate from the complementary 'stop_attack'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, like needing to be in range or having a weapon, nor does it note that 'stop_attack' can halt an ongoing attack. The context is implied but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does 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 states 'follow' but doesn't explain key behaviors such as whether distance is maintained, how the agent reacts to player movement, or what the response looks like. This is a significant gap for a movement-related tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no verbosity. It front-loads the primary action and object, though it could benefit from one or two additional details without becoming bloated. It earns its place by being concise and focused.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is under-specified. It fails to explain return values, behavior under edge cases, or the overall effect of following. The agent is left without enough information to anticipate outcomes.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both 'playerName' and 'distance' documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, but since the schema is fully self-explanatory, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Follow a specific player' uses a clear verb and resource, identifying the action as tracking a player. It distinguishes from siblings like 'goto' (location-based) and 'attack_entity' (combat), though it doesn't elaborate on the specifics of following.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'goto' or 'get_nearby_entities'. The description lacks context about prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only restates the function without adding context about what counts as an entity, whether it's read-only, how distance is measured, or output format. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one short sentence that is front-loaded and easy to read. It is concise, but it borders on under-specification due to the lack of additional context; however, for a one-parameter tool, the length is acceptable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple schema and no output schema, the description should explain what entities are returned and whether 'nearby' is relative to the player. It does neither. Sibling tools like attack_entity imply that entity awareness is important, but the description lacks crucial context, making it incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides 100% coverage for the only parameter (maxDistance) with a description. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'nearby entities', clearly indicating a list retrieval. However, it doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like get_players or find_blocks, and 'entities' is undefined (players, mobs, items?); thus it lacks sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided. The description doesn't state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_players, find_blocks) or any context like whether it includes players or requires a loaded area. There is no when/when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the action without explaining recipients, visibility, or any side effects. It fails to clarify whether the message is broadcast to all players or limited, which is a significant behavioral gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no redundant information. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, earning its place, though it lacks structural richness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with one parameter, but the description fails to provide the context needed to distinguish it from the sibling 'whisper' tool. It does not state whether the message is public or private, which is essential for correct selection. The lack of output schema and annotations increases the need for description clarity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100% (the 'message' property is described as 'Message to send'). The tool description adds no additional parameter context beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Send') and the resource ('a chat message'), and scopes it to 'in the game'. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'whisper', which is also a message-sending tool, leaving ambiguity about whether this is a public or global chat.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention public chat vs. whisper, nor any conditions or prerequisites. The agent receives no context about selection between similarly purposed sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral implications. It only says 'drop items' without noting that dropping likely removes items permanently, whether they become unrecoverable, or whether there are restrictions (e.g., can't drop equipped items). This leaves important behavioral ambiguity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one short, front-loaded sentence with no redundancy. While it lacks additional context, it is appropriately concise for a single-action tool with minimal parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple, but the description covers only the literal action. It lacks any note on permanence, inventory side effects, or usage context. Given no output schema or annotations, the description carries the burden and is insufficient for confident use by an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and both parameters have descriptions, including the default behavior for count ('all if not specified'). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'drop' and identifies the resource 'items from inventory'. Among siblings like equip_item, use_item, and craft_item, this clearly differentiates as the discard action, leaving no ambiguity about its function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does, without mentioning scenarios (e.g., freeing inventory space) or excluding cases. It does not reference any sibling tools or provide context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states where the block comes from ('from inventory') but does not disclose whether the block is consumed, what happens if a block already exists at the target coordinates, or whether the placement can fail (e.g., invalid coordinates). This lack of detail is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no filler words. It is concise and front-loaded with the verb. However, it could be slightly more descriptive without losing conciseness (e.g., mentioning what happens after placement), so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema. The description omits important context such as prerequisites (block must be in inventory), side effects (block removed from inventory), or failure conditions. The completeness is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the consequences of invoking this tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers 100% of the parameters with descriptions for x, y, z, and blockName. The tool description adds the 'from inventory' detail, which somewhat enriches the blockName parameter, but it does not provide meaning beyond the schema descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema already does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Place'), the object ('a block'), and the location ('at specific coordinates'). It also specifies the source ('from inventory'), which distinguishes it from other block-related tools like dig_block or collect_block.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., block must be in inventory) or cases where placement is not appropriate. The description only states what the tool does, not when to choose it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action without mentioning authentication requirements, connection lifecycle, error handling, or side effects. Users are left unaware of what 'connect' entails beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, short sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with no redundant or extraneous information. It earns its place by being concise and immediately understandable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no annotations and no output schema, so the description is the primary source of context. It is too sparse, lacking information about connection setup, expected results, or behavior on failure. Even for a simple tool, more context would be beneficial.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers 100% of parameters with clear descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter context, but the schema already provides sufficient semantic detail for each parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific action ('Connect') and a specific resource ('the bot to a Minecraft server'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like disconnect or get_status. It is a direct, unambiguous statement of the tool's function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied by the tool's purpose (connect when you need to establish a connection), but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions. The description does not mention any conditions such as needing to be disconnected first or handling existing connections.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Equip' indicates a state change, the description does not clarify side effects such as whether the currently equipped item is replaced, whether the item is removed from inventory, or whether equipping can fail. This is a significant gap for a state-mutating tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, succinct sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded and immediately conveys the core action. There is no unnecessary elaboration, making it highly efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no annotations and no output schema, yet the description explains only the basic action. It omits important context such as what happens after equipping, whether the item must be in the player's inventory, and how the destination parameter affects the outcome. For a state-changing tool with two parameters, this is incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides 100% coverage, with itemName described as 'Name of the item to equip' and destination as 'Where to equip the item' with an enum and default. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, but the schema alone is sufficient. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Equip an item from inventory' uses a precise verb ('Equip') and resource ('item from inventory'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like use_item, drop_item, and craft_item. The action is unambiguous and specific to equipping rather than other item interactions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as use_item or place_block. It does not mention any preconditions (e.g., item must be in inventory) or when equipping is preferred over other actions. The intended use case is only weakly implied by the name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state that eating consumes the item, what effects it produces, or any failure conditions. The only extra hint is the schema's note about auto-selection, which is not in the description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the action and object, and contains zero wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with full schema coverage, this is minimally adequate. However, it lacks behavioral and usage context that would help an agent decide when to call it and what to expect, especially since there are no annotations and many sibling tools. It could benefit from mentioning that the item is consumed or that it requires the food to be in inventory.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers 100% of parameters and includes a useful description for foodName ('auto-selects if not specified'). The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Eat a specific food item' clearly states the verb (eat) and resource (food item), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It is specific enough to distinguish from the sibling tool 'use_item' which is more general.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'use_item', nor are prerequisites mentioned (e.g., food must be in inventory). Given the large list of sibling action tools, this lack of context could lead to incorrect tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does 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 only states the action 'make the bot jump' and does not explain effects on movement, cooldowns, side effects, or requirements (e.g., being on ground). This is a significant gap for a mutation-like action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is highly concise and front-loaded, effectively communicating the core action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate for an agent to invoke the action. However, it lacks situational context, such as typical use cases or potential constraints, which would enhance completeness in the broader environment.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially 100% covered. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed. Baseline for 0 params is 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Make the bot jump' clearly identifies the action and resource (the bot). It is specific and distinct from siblings like goto or look_at, but does not explicitly differentiate itself from alternatives or provide comparative context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The usage is implied by the action name itself but not elaborated, leaving the agent without situational context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the action without mentioning effect duration, return value, or side effects (e.g., whether movement is interrupted or if it requires loaded chunks).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, clearly conveying the action and target.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The purpose and parameters are clear for a simple look-at action, but with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits behavioral details such as whether the action is instantaneous or continuous and what outcome indicates success. Acceptable but not thorough.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema fully documents all three parameters (x, y, z) as coordinates to look at, so the description adds no extra semantic value. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'look at' with resource 'bot' and target 'coordinates', clearly distinguishing it from sibling movement tools like goto or follow_player. It is unambiguous and action-oriented.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like goto or follow_player. There are no exclusion criteria, prerequisite conditions, or contextual signals beyond the basic purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does 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 only restates the action and provides no details on prerequisites (e.g., must be sleeping), failure modes, or side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with no structured annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, directly front-loaded with the core action. It wastes no words and is appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite the tool's simplicity, the description lacks context about the required state (sleeping) and what happens if waking is not possible. No output schema or annotations enrich the definition, so the description should provide more complete context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema fully covers the input space. Baseline of 4 is appropriate because there is nothing for the description to add beyond what the schema already conveys.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Wake up from sleeping' clearly identifies the action and resource, distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'sleep' as the inverse operation. It is specific and unambiguous, though it could elaborate on the effects of waking up.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is used when the agent is sleeping, but it does not explicitly state when to use it or mention alternatives. No exclusions or conditions are provided, so guidance is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Navigate to and collect', with no mention of whether the block is destroyed, if tools are required, what happens if the block is unreachable, or how collected items are handled. This is a significant transparency gap for a tool that likely has complex side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that directly conveys the essential purpose. Every word contributes meaning with no redundancy or filler, making it highly efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema and annotations, this description is under-specified for a tool that involves navigation and collection. It does not explain return behavior, failure handling, or prerequisites, leaving the agent with an incomplete picture of how to use the tool successfully in a complex environment.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema fully documents both parameters (blockName and count) with clear descriptions, so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already provides the necessary meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Navigate to and collect a specific block type'. This includes a specific verb ('collect') and resource ('block type'), and the 'Navigate to' aspect distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'dig_block' or 'find_blocks', which focus on digging or finding without movement.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use this tool: when you want to collect a specific block by navigating to it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools, leaving the usage context somewhat implicit rather than clearly delineated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions 'using available materials' but does not state that crafting consumes materials, may require known recipes, or can fail. This leaves important side effects unclear for the agent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the action and its prerequisite. It contains no filler or redundancy, making it concise and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits critical details such as material consumption, recipe requirements, and failure conditions. The agent would need to look at sibling tools like get_recipes to fully understand crafting mechanics, but the description itself does not guide the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% for both parameters (itemName and count), so the schema already provides their meaning. The description does not add any extra parameter context, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Craft an item using available materials' clearly identifies the action (craft), the resource (item), and the prerequisite (materials). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_recipes (which lists recipes) and use_item (which uses existing items), so the purpose is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies that crafting is done when you have materials, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_recipes or get_inventory. No exclusions or alternative guidance is provided, so the agent must infer the appropriate context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without mentioning any side effects (e.g., changing block state), prerequisites (like proximity), or return feedback. This leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-crafted sentence that uses concrete examples to clarify meaning without any wasted words. It is appropriately brief and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with fully documented parameters, the description adequately explains the core purpose and usage context. However, it omits details about return values, prerequisites, or potential side effects, which is notable given the lack of an output schema and annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema fully documents all three parameters with coordinate descriptions (100% coverage). The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool as activating or interacting with a block, with concrete examples (opening a chest, pressing a button). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like dig_block or place_block, though the word 'interact' is somewhat broad and could overlap with other actions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The examples provide clear context for when to use the tool (e.g., opening a chest, pressing a button), implying typical interactive-block scenarios. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use it, so it falls short of a perfect score.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('dig/break') without any context about consequences such as whether the block drops items, whether a tool is required, if the action can fail, or if it triggers side effects. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded phrase: 'Dig/break a block at specific coordinates.' It contains zero unnecessary words and efficiently conveys the tool's core function, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with no output schema, the description is minimally viable—it says what it does. However, it lacks any contextual details such as prerequisites, limitations, or difference from collect_block. Given the absence of annotations, this falls short of being complete but is adequate for a straightforward action.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides 100% description coverage, with each parameter (x, y, z) already described as coordinates. The description adds no additional meaning beyond 'specific coordinates', so the baseline of 3 applies—schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Dig/break a block at specific coordinates' uses a specific action verb ('dig/break') and resource ('block') plus coordinates, clearly distinguishing it from siblings like place_block, get_block_info, and find_blocks. It is concise and unambiguous about what the tool does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage: when you need to break/dig a block at given coordinates, use this tool. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when not to use it or how it differs from similar siblings like collect_block, which may have overlapping functionality. This is minimal but not absent, so it earns a 3.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, what it returns, or any side effects. 'Find' implies a search operation, but the description omits critical details like return format or potential limitations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that is front-loaded with the main action and resource. Every word earns its place, with no redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple find-tool with a well-described schema, the description is adequate but has gaps. No output schema means the description could have mentioned return values (e.g., positions), and it doesn't address behavioral nuances like whether the search respects line-of-sight or is limited to loaded chunks. It's functional but not comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
All three parameters are fully described in the input schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, only hinting at 'specific type' and 'near the bot' which correspond to blockName and maxDistance. It does not enrich the parameter meanings further.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool finds blocks of a specific type near the bot, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_block_info (which inspects a block), dig_block/collect_block (which break blocks), and place_block (which places blocks).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the usage context (searching for blocks near the bot) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions. It's clear enough for typical use, but lacks the explicit alternative naming seen in higher-quality descriptions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It states that the tool 'gets information' which implies a non-mutating read operation, but it does not elaborate on what information is returned, potential error conditions, or whether permissions are required. This is minimal and does not enrich the agent's understanding beyond the obvious.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without repetition or filler, earning a perfect score for conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with full parameter descriptions, but the description does not specify what 'information' is returned (e.g., block type, properties, or state) and lacks an output schema to clarify. While it is minimally sufficient for a getter, the absence of return value details and usage guidance leaves slight gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage with each parameter (x, y, z) described as a coordinate. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, merely referencing 'specific coordinates'. Since the schema already fully documents parameters, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('information about a block') with a precise scope ('at specific coordinates'). It is distinct from sibling tools like 'dig_block', 'place_block', and 'find_blocks' by focusing on reading block data rather than modifying or searching.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use for retrieving block properties at a given location, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like 'find_blocks' or how it differs from 'collect_block' or 'activate_block'. There is no mention of exclusions or preconditions, leaving the agent to infer context from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, leaving the description to fully convey behavioral traits. It only states 'Get a list of all players' without disclosing read-only nature, permission requirements, response format, or potential side effects. This minimal disclosure is insufficient for a tool without annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without superfluous content. It is front-loaded and efficient, conveying the essential information immediately.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (no parameters, no output schema), the description covers the core function adequately. However, it does not specify what information is included in the returned list (e.g., player names, UUIDs, locations) or how the tool behaves with an empty server. For a simple read operation, this is acceptable but not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the schema reflects this with no properties. According to the rubric, a zero-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter info, but none is needed since there are no parameters to explain.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies a specific operation (get) and resource (all players on the server). It is distinct from sibling tools such as get_nearby_entities, connect, or send_chat, which serve different purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or typical use cases. The only implied usage is that it is for retrieving the full player list, but there is no explicit comparison to other tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the operation is a 'Get' (implying read-only), but fails to clarify what 'available' means (e.g., based on player knowledge, unlocked recipes), whether any prerequisites exist, or what happens when the item has no recipes. No return format or error behavior is mentioned.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action ('Get available crafting recipes') and clearly states the input. There is no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (1 parameter, no nested objects) and the description gives a basic understanding of its purpose, but with no output schema, it does not explain what the returned recipes contain (e.g., ingredients, workbench type). The vagueness of 'available' leaves the exact response structure unclear, making it minimally adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'itemName', and its description ('Name of the item to get recipes for') is fully self-explanatory. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly and specifically states the tool's function: retrieving available crafting recipes for a given item. It uses a distinct verb ('Get') and resource ('available crafting recipes'), and is easily distinguishable from sibling tools like 'craft_item' which performs the actual crafting action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implicitly conveys when to use the tool (when you need crafting recipes for an item), but provides no explicit guidance on alternatives or situations where it should not be used. It does not mention relationships to siblings like 'craft_item' or 'get_inventory'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and 'nearby bed' as a location, but omits effects (e.g., skipping to day, changing spawn point), failure modes (no bed found), and any other consequences. This is a significant transparency gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The entire description is a single five-word sentence: 'Sleep in a nearby bed.' It is maximally concise, front-loaded with the verb and object, and contains no redundant or filler content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 0-parameter, no-output-schema action, the description is minimally sufficient to convey the core function. However, it lacks behavioral context such as whether a bed is required, what happens if no bed is nearby, or whether sleeping has in-game effects (e.g., healing, time passage). These gaps make it incomplete for robust agent decision-making.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete (100% coverage). With no parameters to describe, the description cannot add parameter meaning; baseline 4 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Sleep in a nearby bed' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating a sleep action with a proximity condition. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'wake' (opposite action) and 'goto'/'use_item' (different operations).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies use for sleeping but does not mention prerequisites, timing (e.g., night), or alternative tools for bed-related interactions. Minimal inference is required.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the action without explaining side effects, prerequisites (e.g., must be currently attacking), or what happens if there is no target. A simple stop command could benefit from clarifying whether it also clears the target.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a simple stop action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 params, no output schema), the description is mostly adequate, but it lacks edge-case information such as behavior when no attack is in progress or whether the target is unset. For a mutation tool with no annotations, slightly more detail would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the description adds no parameter details, but none are needed. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description does not mislead or omit necessary parameter information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Stop attacking the current target' uses a specific verb ('Stop') and identifies the resource ('current target'), making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like 'attack_entity' and 'stop_movement'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'stop_movement' or 'disconnect'. While the name implies the use case, there is no explicit context, exclusions, or alternatives mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states the action (send private message) but does not disclose possible outcomes (e.g., player not found, asynchronous delivery, authentication requirements) or any side effects. Minimal behavioral detail is provided.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential purpose with zero wasted words. It is perfectly sized for the tool's simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with only two parameters, and the schema fully documents them. However, with no output schema or annotations, the description could have briefly mentioned delivery semantics or failure behavior to make it fully complete. It is adequate but has room to inform about edge cases.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides 100% coverage for both parameters, so the description need not elaborate. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already offers, consistent with the baseline for full schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific action ('Send a private message') and a resource ('a player'), making it easily distinguishable from sibling tools like send_chat. The word 'private' explicitly differentiates it from public chat.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for private communication but does not explicitly compare to alternatives like send_chat or mention when to prefer this tool. There is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance, only a clear purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'pathfinding' as a method, but does not disclose whether the operation is blocking, how errors are handled (e.g., unreachable coordinates), or if movement can be interrupted. For a state-changing operation, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that includes the verb, target, and method. It contains no redundant phrases and is easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite a simple parameter set, the lack of behavioral details (e.g., return value, asynchronous behavior, failure modes) makes the description incomplete, especially given no annotations or output schema. An agent may not know how to handle edge cases like pathfinding failure.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema descriptions for x, y, and z are simple ('X coordinate', etc.) and cover 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add further meaning about coordinate systems, units, or ranges, so it neither improves nor detracts.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: to navigate the bot to specific coordinates using pathfinding. It identifies the verb ('navigate'), the resource ('the bot'), and the destination ('specific coordinates'), distinguishing it from sibling movement tools like 'jump' or 'look_at'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when the bot needs to move to exact coordinates, as opposed to following a player or stopping movement. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of the highest bar.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only mentions 'right-click action' but does not describe what happens if no item is held, whether the item is consumed, whether there is a cooldown, or any side effects. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity for an action tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-phrased sentence that immediately states the action and the context ('right-click action'). Every word adds value, and there is no redundant or filler content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a no-parameter tool, the core action is clearly described, and the 'right-click action' hint provides useful context. However, with no annotations or output schema, the description does not cover failure conditions, prerequisites, or how it differs from the many sibling actions, leaving some gaps for an agent selecting among similar tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly focuses on the action itself rather than adding unnecessary parameter details, and no parameter semantics are needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a clear verb ('Use/activate') and a specific resource ('currently held item'), and adds the 'right-click action' qualifier which distinguishes it from block activation (activate_block). This makes the tool's purpose immediately clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'currently held item' implies when to use it (when the agent wants to activate the item in hand), but there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which alternative to choose. The sibling tool activate_block provides contrast, but it is not named or discussed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without revealing potential consequences such as stopping ongoing bot activities, loss of connection state, or whether a reconnect is needed. This is a notable gap for a mutating action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and perfectly concise for the tool's simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (no parameters, no output schema), the description provides the essential information needed to invoke it. However, it could be slightly enhanced by mentioning that disconnecting terminates the bot's current activities or requires reconnection, but it is already sufficiently complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is no parameter meaning to explain. The description does not need to add parameter details, meeting the baseline for a no-parameter tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('disconnect') and the resource ('the bot from the current server'), making it distinct from sibling tools like 'connect'. It is specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance is given. Usage is implied by the tool's name and description, but there is no mention of scenarios such as before shutting down or after completing tasks, nor any reference to the 'connect' sibling for reconnection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. The word 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not state that it has no side effects, what exact contents are returned, or any other behavioral details. It is adequate but minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that is front-loaded and contains no filler. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple no-parameter read operation, the description provides the essential information needed to select the tool. It is slightly incomplete in that it does not describe the return format (e.g., item IDs, quantities), but given the tool's low complexity, this is a minor gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is effectively 100%. The baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4, and the description adds no conflicting or missing parameter information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource ('current inventory contents'). It is unambiguous and distinct from all sibling tools, none of which relate to inventory.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are there any prerequisites or exclusions. The only contextual hint is the phrase 'current,' which implies querying the present state, but no explicit usage direction is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the burden. It transparently states the effect on movement and pathfinding, but does not disclose whether it cancels queued commands, whether it is reversible, or what state the bot ends in. The scope is clear but side effects are unspecified.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single well-structured sentence that is front-loaded and contains no filler. It is appropriately sized for a parameterless tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple, parameterless command with no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It could add a note about whether this stops automatic pathfinding in progress, but the main purpose is fully captured.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is complete, so there is nothing for parameter docs to add. The description still usefully clarifies that the action covers both literal movement and pathfinding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description uses specific verb 'stop' with resource 'all movement and pathfinding', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like stop_attack, goto, and follow_player. It states exactly what the tool does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage context is implied: this is the tool to call when movement or pathfinding should halt, especially after goto/follow_player. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use it, mention alternatives, or exclude cases like stopping attacks.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation via 'get' and lists output fields, but does not explicitly confirm no side effects, mention connectivity requirements, or address potential caching. Basic transparency is present, but more detail could be added.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, with no redundant filler. Every word contributes meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only status tool with no parameters or output schema, the description lists key status fields and uses 'etc.' to cover additional data. It is sufficient for an agent to understand what to expect, though listing a few more possible fields might enhance completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds value by explaining what the status contains (health, hunger, position), which helps the agent understand the tool's scope even though it doesn't explain parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves the bot's current status, listing concrete fields like health, hunger, and position. This distinguishes it from siblings such as get_inventory or get_players by focusing on the bot's overall state.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context on when to use this tool (to check the bot's status), and the listing of fields implies its scope. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, though the purpose is self-evident.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![minecraft-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/HarjjotSinghh/minecraft-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/HarjjotSinghh/minecraft-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![minecraft-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/HarjjotSinghh/minecraft-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/HarjjotSinghh/minecraft-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/HarjjotSinghh/minecraft-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server