Avoid dangerous nights or secure your respawn point by locating and using a nearby bed in Minecraft.
Sleep in a nearby bed
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "sleep"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.