minecraft-mcp

by IotA-asce

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

TypeScript

Local

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct action or query in Minecraft, from movement (sprint, sneak, jump, move_to, teleport) to interaction (break_block, place_block, attack, interact_entity) and data retrieval (get_inventory, get_player_state, get_block_at). Even similar operations like use_item and interact_entity are clearly differentiated by targeting items vs. entities.
Naming Consistency5/5
Tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern: get_* for state queries, set_* for world modifications, and bare action verbs for player actions. There are no mixed conventions or vague generic names like 'process' or 'do_thing'.
Tool Count4/5
27 tools is slightly above the typical well-scoped range, but the breadth is justified by Minecraft's complex mechanics (movement, inventory, world editing, entities, time/weather, commands). The set feels comprehensive rather than bloated, with each tool serving a concrete purpose.
Completeness4/5
The surface covers most core Minecraft interactions: movement, block manipulation, inventory management, entity interaction, world queries, and environment settings. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no explicit crafting action, no block entity inspection like chests), but agents can work around these via run_command or give_item.
Average 3.8/5 across 27 of 27 tools scored. Lowest: 2.9/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 14 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention potential side effects, requirements (e.g., must be holding an item), failure cases, or whether the action can be canceled. This leaves significant gaps for a game 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 sentence with no fluff. It is front-loaded and every word contributes to the core meaning, making it highly concise.
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 output schema, the description is too sparse to be fully complete. It does not explain return behavior, edge cases (e.g., no item in hand), or interaction with the environment, which are important for an action tool in a complex game context.
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 for the single optional 'player' parameter is 100%, with a clear description in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter context, so the baseline 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 states the action (right-click) and the resource (item in main hand), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like break_block, place_block, and attack. However, it does not explicitly clarify the distinction from interact_entity or place_block when right-clicking on targets, leaving slight ambiguity.
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 state explicit use cases, exclusions, or mention that it is for activating items in air or on entities/blocks, so the agent is left to infer.
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 states 'jump once,' which is the core behavior, but does not disclose potential prerequisites (e.g., player on ground), side effects, or whether the action interrupts other states. This is minimal behavioral transparency.
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 communicates the essential action without any fluff. It earns high marks for efficiency and structure.
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 one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It lacks broader contextual details such as typical use cases or relationship to other movement commands, but the simplicity of the action makes it arguably sufficient.
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 the single parameter fully with a clear description, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema's parameter documentation.
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 ('Make the player jump once') with a specific verb and resource, which is more specific than just the tool name. It distinguishes from sibling movement tools like sprint and sneak, though it could be slightly clearer about the player scope.
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 or when it is appropriate. There is no mention of context or exclusions, leaving the usage entirely 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 carries the full burden. It states 'Change' and a creative-mode effect, but doesn't disclose permissions, reversibility, or effects on the specified player vs default. This is minimal disclosure 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?
A single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and includes a useful parenthetical. No wasted words.
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 two-parameter setter, the description is functional but sparse. It lacks behavioral transparency and alternative guidance, yet the schema and parenthetical cover essential invocation details. A middle score reflects the missing safety and usage contexts.
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 covers the 'player' parameter with a description but leaves 'mode' undocumented. The description adds meaning for 'creative' but not for the other enum values. Given 50% schema coverage, the description only partially compensates for the parameter documentation gap.
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 the specific verb 'Change' with the resource 'player's gamemode', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like set_time or set_weather. The parenthetical adds concrete behavioral detail for creative mode, reinforcing the purpose.
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 when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided. The description merely states the action; it doesn't explain when to choose this over run_command or indicate exclusions. The creative-mode note is a behavioral detail rather than usage direction.
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 only states the basic action and default world; it does not mention whether the change is global, persistent, impacts all players, or requires permissions. This is a minimal disclosure that leaves significant 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 sentence, front-loaded with the action, and contains no extraneous words. It is appropriately 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?
Given the simple tool and no output schema, the description covers the core action and default world. However, it omits any mention of side effects on existing weather, whether the change is permanent, or how players experience it. For a tool without annotations, a little more behavioral context would be beneficial, but it is not severely 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 already documents 67% of parameters (world and player), and the description adds the default world behavior ('default: the player's world'), which adds value. However, it does not clarify the weather enum options or the player default beyond what the schema provides, so the incremental contribution is moderate.
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 verb 'Set' and the resource 'weather', scoped to 'a world', with a helpful default note. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_time_weather, which retrieves conditions rather than changing them.
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 (changing weather) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like get_time_weather or set_time, nor does it state when not to use the tool. The default-world information is a small but useful contextual hint.
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 mentions failure when the item is absent and the default slot, but it omits critical side effects: what happens to the item already in the target slot? Does it swap back to inventory or get destroyed? This is essential for an agent to predict outcomes safely.
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 core action, and includes key constraints (default slot, failure condition). Every word earns its place with no redundancy.
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 mutating nature and lack of annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the fate of a replaced item in the target slot, which is a critical unknown. It also doesn't describe the return value or success/failure indicators, though no output schema exists. The minimal behavioral info helps but is insufficient for safe agent use.
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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds 'first matching' to clarify item behavior, but it largely repeats the schema's default slot info (which already states default main_hand). No significant extra parameter meaning beyond the schema.
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: 'Move the first matching stack from the player's inventory into a slot' – a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like drop_item (removes) and swap_hands (swaps between hands) by specifying inventory-to-slot movement and default main hand. The failure condition is also mentioned.
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 gives clear context: equips an item, defaults to main hand, and fails if the item isn't present. This implies when to use it, but it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions such as 'use swap_hands to swap hands.' The context is clear enough for basic usage.
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 burden. It discloses the default world behavior and uses 'Read' to imply non-destructive operation. However, it does not mention potential edge cases such as requiring an online player or what happens when defaults cannot be resolved.
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 with no redundant words. It immediately states the action and object, making it 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?
The description omits any mention of the 'player' parameter, leaving its purpose unclear. There is no output schema, and the description does not clarify what the returned data looks like. For a tool with two optional parameters and no annotations, this is insufficient.
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 documents both parameters with 100% coverage, including defaults. The description adds no additional meaning about the 'player' parameter and only restates the world default already in the schema. Thus it meets the baseline but provides no extra semantic value.
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 'Read' and identifies the resource as 'time of day and weather' for a world, with a default scope. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_time and set_weather, which are mutating operations.
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 for querying current time and weather but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives. Since siblings include set_time and set_weather, the read-only nature is inferred but not explicitly contrasted. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.
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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core behavior (enable/disable sneaking) but does not mention reversibility, state persistence, or any conditions (e.g., whether sneaking stops when moving). The description is not misleading, but lacks depth in explaining edge cases. A basic toggling operation is transparent enough to warrant a 3.
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 that immediately states the tool's purpose. There is no wasted information or unnecessary elaboration. It is appropriately sized 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?
The tool is simple, the schema fully documents the two parameters, and the description states the purpose. No output schema is needed for a toggle operation. The description plus schema is sufficient for an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly. A minor gap is the lack of mention of side effects or prerequisites, but these are not critical for such a basic 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?
Schema coverage is 100%, with both 'player' and 'enabled' fully described in the schema. The description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting and the description adds no extra value.
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: 'Enable or disable sneaking (crouching) for the player.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'sprint' or 'jump'. The title 'Toggle sneaking' reinforces the purpose, but the description adds clarity by specifying enable/disable behavior.
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 that sneaking might interact with sprinting or other movement actions. The usage is only implied by the name and description, with no explicit when/when-not or alternative references.
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 carries the full burden. It states the core behavior (enable/disable sprinting) but adds no extra context about side effects, prerequisites (e.g., player online), or persistence. It is minimally adequate for a simple toggle, but does not go beyond a restatement of the schema.
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 immediately conveys the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded and contains no extraneous information.
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 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the essential behavior. The schema fills in parameter details, and the description is sufficient to understand the tool's function, though it lacks deeper context about when to use it.
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%, with the description of 'enabled' already explaining true/false semantics. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.
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 'Enable or disable sprinting for the player' with a specific verb (enable/disable) and resource (sprinting). It distinguishes from siblings like 'sneak' and 'stop' by clearly referring to the sprint action.
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. The description simply states what it does without mentioning exclusions or other tools like 'sneak' or 'stop', leaving usage context entirely to the reader.
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 action ('Set') but does not reveal side effects, such as whether the change affects all players in the world, whether it overrides the natural time cycle, or whether any permissions are required. The tick mapping is helpful but relates to parameter semantics rather than behavioral transparency.
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 that is front-loaded with the action and resource, immediately followed by a compact and useful tick mapping. There is no wasted verbiage or redundant information; every word contributes to understanding the 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 setter tool, the description covers the core purpose and parameter meaning, but it lacks higher-level context such as when to use it over alternatives and what the broader effect of changing world time is. The absence of annotations and output schema increases the need for more behavioral context, which is only partially provided.
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 input schema already covers all parameters with 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds significant meaning to the time_ticks parameter by mapping specific values to times of day (0=sunrise, 6000=noon, etc.), which is absent from the schema. It does not add detail to world/player parameters, but the primary parameter is well explained.
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: 'Set the time of day for a world in ticks'. It identifies the specific resource (world time) and provides a concrete tick mapping, distinguishing it from sibling tools like set_weather (weather) and get_time_weather (query). The verb 'Set' is specific and the object 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 when to use this tool (to change the time of day) but does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions. For instance, it does not mention that get_time_weather should be used for querying time, nor does it distinguish from running a command. The usage context is clear from the purpose but not elaborated.
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 discloses that behavior varies by game mode and may time out, which adds value. Yet it omits other behavioral details such as whether the block drops items, whether the player must be in range, or what happens if coordinates are invalid. These gaps make it only partially transparent.
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 two sentences and every part adds value: the first sentence states the primary action, and the second adds crucial behavioral caveats. It is front-loaded and free of fluff.
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 and complete parameter schema, the description covers the essential behavior including survival timeouts. It does not explain return values, but no output schema exists and the tool likely returns a simple success/failure. The description is nearly complete for the practical needs of an agent selecting the 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters (x, y, z, player). The description does not add any extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, which matches the baseline for good 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 the action: 'Face and break the block at the given coordinates.' It uses a specific verb ('break') and a resource ('block'), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like place_block and attack by focusing on block breaking.
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 by stating what the tool does, and it provides context about game mode differences ('Instant in creative mode; takes time in survival and may time out'). However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like attack or use_item, nor does it mention any prerequisites such as line of sight or facing direction beyond 'Face and break'.
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 carries full disclosure responsibility. It clearly states that items are moved from inventory to the ground and mentions the default to the currently held item. However, it does not disclose whether this is reversible, if any permissions are needed, or what happens when count exceeds inventory, making it somewhat shallow for a state-modifying operation.
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 sentence that starts with the action verb and clearly communicates the core function. No redundant or filler content; every word serves a purpose.
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 tool with only three optional parameters and a rich schema, the description adequately sets expectations. It could mention the requirement of an online player (though the schema covers it) or that the item entity is spawned, but these are minor gaps. Overall, it is sufficient for the tool's low complexity.
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 JSON schema with defaults, types, and examples, achieving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description only echoes the default-held-item behavior already present in the schema, so it adds minimal extra meaning beyond the structured fields.
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 'Drop' and identifies the resource as 'items from the player's inventory' with the target 'onto the ground'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like give_item (which likely adds items to inventory) and place_block (which places blocks in the world). The default to held item is an extra useful detail.
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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives such as give_item or equip_item. The context of 'dropping onto the ground' is implied, but no exclusions or alternative naming are provided. Thus, the tool is understandable but relies on the agent's world knowledge.
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?
The word 'Read' signals a non-mutating operation, but with no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose behavior on invalid coordinates, result formatting, or dependence on optional world/player parameters. No contradiction exists.
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 zero filler. It states the action and subject efficiently, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 tool with fully described optional parameters, the description is largely sufficient. It implies the return value (material type) and is backed by a detailed schema. It lacks an explicit safety note and edge-case handling, but overall complete for the task.
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 provides 100% parameter coverage with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description only references 'given coordinates' and does not add extra meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.
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 ('Read') and resource ('material occupies the block at coordinates'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like break_block or place_block. It communicates exactly what the tool does in one sentence.
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 for inspecting block contents, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives, mention any exclusions, or reference sibling tools. Usage context is clear but not formally guided.
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 burden of indicating safety. The word 'Read' signals a read-only operation, but additional behavioral details such as error handling, offline player behavior, or response format are not disclosed. The list of attributes adds some context but doesn't go beyond basic semantics.
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 one efficient sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by a compact list of attributes. Every word contributes meaningful information without redundancy.
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 (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description adequately specifies the returned player attributes. It doesn't detail output formatting or error scenarios, but these gaps are minor for a simple read operation.
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 'player', which is fully documented with its meaning and default. The description adds no parameter-specific information, 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 the specific verb 'Read' and enumerates the exact attributes (position, world, view direction, health, food, XP, gamemode, movement flags, and held item), making it unambiguously a player state query. It clearly distinguishes from sibling action tools like move_to or attack.
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 obtaining player state but doesn't explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like get_inventory or get_block_at. No exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned, so guidance is only implicit.
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 carries the burden. It discloses that items are added directly and bypass crafting/pickup, but it doesn't mention potential failure modes (e.g., invalid item keys, offline players), permissions, or side effects. The schema covers the online-player constraint, but the description itself is thin on behavioral depth.
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 filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's core function.
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 (3 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description plus schema provide sufficient contextual completeness. The main gap is the lack of explicit usage guidelines and failure behavior, but the tool is straightforward enough that the description is mostly 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?
The input schema has 100% coverage for all parameters, including descriptions for item, count, and player. With full schema coverage, the description adds no additional parameter context, which is acceptable per baseline but doesn't elevate the score.
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 ('Add') and resource ('player's inventory'), and the parenthetical 'no crafting or pickup needed' clarifies that this bypasses game mechanics, distinguishing it from related tools like drop_item, equip_item, and get_inventory.
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 by the purpose, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusion criteria. The phrase 'no crafting or pickup needed' hints at scenarios, but it doesn't name sibling tools or provide when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance.
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 carries the disclosure burden. It states that the message 'appears in game chat' and 'triggers normal chat events', which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not mention potential side effects like visibility to other players, chat logging, or rate limits, so it provides moderate transparency.
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 that efficiently states the action and key effect. No filler or repetition, every word adds value.
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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core action and the main behavioral consequence (triggering chat events). It is slightly sparse on environmental impact (e.g., whether other players see the message), but overall it is sufficiently complete for a chat 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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes both parameters. The description adds a small clarification that the message is sent 'as the player', relating to the 'player' parameter's default behavior, but it does not add significant semantic detail beyond the schema.
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: 'Send a chat message as the player', identifies the resource (game chat), and notes it 'triggers normal chat events'. This distinguishes it from all sibling tools, which are movement, world interaction, or inventory operations.
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 the tool (when you want the player to send a chat message) but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention alternatives. Since there are no direct chat-related siblings, the context is clear enough, but exclusions or prerequisites are missing.
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 discloses the instant nature of the teleport and optional world/view direction, but does not mention potential side effects such as fall damage, permission requirements, or behavior when the target player is invalid. The mutation action (changing position) is evident but lacks deeper behavioral context.
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 one concise sentence (14 words) that front-loads the core action and mentions optional capabilities. There is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.
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 schema's full parameter coverage and the tool's simple nature, the description is mostly complete. It explains the primary purpose and optional features, but could benefit from usage guidance or behavioral caveats. Still, for an uncomplicated teleport tool, it is sufficient.
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% description coverage, so all 7 parameters are already documented. The description adds minimal value by summarizing coordinates, world, and view direction, but it doesn't provide additional details beyond the schema, such as defaults or edge cases.
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 (teleport) and the resource (player), along with optional modifiers (world, view direction). It distinguishes from siblings like move_to by explicitly using 'teleport', implying instant relocation rather than 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 usage for instant player relocation but does not explicitly compare with alternatives like move_to or provide exclusions. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, leaving the agent to infer from the verb and context.
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 of disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions using the player's inventory or creative mode, which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose what happens if the block is not available, if the target position is occupied, or whether placement consumes the block in survival. These omissions leave 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 two sentences with no redundant content. The primary action and key constraints are front-loaded, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.
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 tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description explains the main purpose and resource usage but omits potential failure scenarios, permission requirements, and behavior when the player is not specified. It's adequate for simple use but not fully complete for an agent to anticipate all outcomes.
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 schema covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying the role of the 'face' parameter ('against the adjacent face') and explaining the 'player' parameter's relation to inventory/creative mode. This extra context elevates it above the baseline.
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: placing a block of a specified material at given coordinates against an adjacent face. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like break_block and get_block_at, which have opposite or read-only purposes.
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 the tool (to place blocks) but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose it over alternatives like use_item or interact_entity. It also doesn't state prerequisites such as having the block in inventory or being in creative mode, though the inventory mention hints at survival constraints.
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 carries the full burden. It discloses the 'face and attack' behavior and the 'once' aspect, but does not mention potential side effects (e.g., damage, entity death) or failure conditions. This is adequate for a simple action but lacks depth.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action. Every word earns its place, and it is extremely concise without losing necessary information.
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 action tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficient. It explains the action and provides the required input source. Minor gaps exist (e.g., what happens after attack), but they are not critical for basic usage.
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%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description repeats the entity_id source but adds no new semantics 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.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Face and attack an entity once') with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like interact_entity by explicitly focusing on attacking, and the scope ('once') adds precision.
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?
Provides clear usage context by instructing to use an entity id from get_nearby_entities, which is a prerequisite. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like interact_entity, but the domain makes the distinction obvious.
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 discloses the 'instant' nature of the rotation, which is a useful behavioral detail. However, it does not mention potential side effects (e.g., whether this affects movement controls, what happens if the player is not online, or any error conditions). For a simple view rotation, this is adequate but not extensive, meriting a midpoint score.
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 immediately states the action and target. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant or tangential information.
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?
The tool is simple and the description adequately explains its core function. With no output schema or annotations, a bit more detail could be added (e.g., what happens if no player is online or if the coordinates are invalid), but the description covers the essential behavior. Given the tool's low complexity, this is nearly complete.
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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the detail that the coordinates are 'block or entity position,' which gives slightly more semantic context than the raw coordinate labels. However, this is a minor addition and does not substantially enrich the parameter meaning beyond the schema.
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 ('rotate'), the resource ('the player's view'), and the target ('the given block or entity position'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like move_to or teleport by focusing solely on changing the viewing direction rather than the player's position.
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 gives clear context: use this when you want the player to face a specific position without moving. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the single-purpose phrasing makes the usage obvious. A score of 4 is appropriate as it clearly communicates the intended scenario without needing exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the primary behavior (executing a command) and the return type ('Returns the command output, possibly empty'). However, it does not warn about potential side effects or permission requirements.
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?
Two concise sentences that are front-loaded with the action and include a concrete example. No filler or redundant phrasing.
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 but has a potential ambiguity around the 'player' parameter, which the description does not clarify. It also omits any mention of error cases or safety for a command execution tool. Given no output schema, the description covers purpose and return behavior but leaves these 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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters. The description adds the example 'say hello' but no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the 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 clearly states the action ('Execute'), the resource ('vanilla or plugin command from the server console'), and includes an example. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on server console execution rather than player 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 'from the server console' phrasing provides clear context for when to use this tool, differentiating it from player-facing chat or actions. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools.
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 carries the full burden. It discloses the default positioning behavior, which is a useful behavioral trait, but does not mention side effects such as world mutation, persistence, or potential failure (e.g., invalid entity type). It gives some context but lacks comprehensive transparency.
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 that is front-loaded with the action, includes examples, and states the default behavior. Every word earns its place, with 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?
For a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose and basic usage but omits details like whether coordinates are absolute or relative, how to specify the player, and what the return value is. This leaves some gaps for an agent trying to invoke the tool correctly.
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?
Schema coverage is only 40% (type and player have descriptions). The description adds meaning by implying x, y, z are optional (via 'or 2 blocks in front of the player by default') and provides example entity types. It does not elaborate on the player parameter beyond the schema, but the compensation for the low-coverage coordinates is helpful.
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 ('spawn') and the resource ('entity'), with concrete examples (zombie, cow, armor_stand). It differentiates from sibling tools like interact_entity or attack by indicating a creation action, making its purpose unmistakable.
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 usage context by noting that coordinates are optional and default to 2 blocks in front of the player, which guides when to omit them. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but no sibling tool performs spawning, so the usage scope is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the state-changing effect (swapping items), which is sufficient given the simplicity of the operation. No hidden behaviors or side effects need disclosure.
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 fully communicates the action without unnecessary words or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is a simple one-parameter action with no output schema. The description adequately covers what the tool does, and the schema handles parameter details, making the description complete for this level of complexity.
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 already includes a description for the 'player' parameter with default behavior. The tool description adds no additional parameter information beyond this, so the baseline of 3 applies 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 a specific verb ('Swap') and identifies the exact resource ('items in the player's main hand and off hand'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'equip_item' or 'drop_item'.
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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions. However, the action is simple and the intended use case (swapping items) is strongly implied. It does not mention alternatives or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the operation is a read-only listing that returns ids, types, positions, and distances. This is sufficient for a non-mutating tool, though it does not mention potential sorting limits or entity type filtering, leaving small 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?
Two sentences, both informative and front-loaded. The first sentence states the action and output fields; the second explains why entity ids are relevant. No redundant or vague phrasing.
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?
The tool is simple with only two optional parameters and no output schema. The description covers what is returned and how to use the results, and the schema fills in parameter defaults and constraints. Minor omissions like output format or entity count are not critical given the tool's simplicity.
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 describes both parameters (player and radius) at 100% coverage. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond repeating the schema, so the baseline 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'List entities near the player (mobs, players, items, ...) with their ids, types, positions and distances.' It identifies the specific resource (nearby entities) and what information is returned, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like attack or interact_entity by framing the output as the source of entity ids.
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 contextual guidance by noting that 'Entity ids are used with attack and interact_entity,' implying this tool should be used when those actions are needed. It does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide when to use it.
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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates that the tool performs a right-click interaction and gives examples of effects (trading, mounting), which provides some transparency. However, it does not mention potential side effects, failure conditions, or prerequisites beyond the entity id, leaving gaps in understanding the tool's full behavioral impact.
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?
Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action and examples, with no unnecessary words. The description is immediately scannable and efficient.
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 action tool with schema-covered parameters and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient: it states the action, provides examples, and tells the agent where to source the required entity id. It lacks deeper behavioral detail, but that is partially addressed by the examples and covered under transparency.
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 input schema has 100% coverage for its two parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds valuable cross-tool context by specifying that entity_id comes from get_nearby_entities, which is not present in the schema. This operational guidance goes beyond the structured field definitions.
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 ('right-click an entity') and provides concrete examples (open villager trade, mount), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'attack' (left-click) and 'use_item' by focusing on entity right-click interactions.
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 explicitly directs the user to obtain the entity id from get_nearby_entities, giving clear context on a prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly compare this tool with alternatives such as 'attack' or 'use_item', so no exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and delivers: it explains the walking mechanics (looking at the target, holding forward), obstacle handling (jumping 1-block obstacles), the completion condition (within 1.5 blocks horizontally), and cancellation via 'stop'. It does not cover failure modes like unreachable coordinates or pathfinding around taller obstacles.
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?
Two sentences deliver the core action and key behavioral details with zero redundancy. The description is front-loaded with the main purpose and adds necessary nuances after, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
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 movement tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the primary behavior, resolution condition, and cancellation mechanism. The schema fills in timeout and speed. Missing explicit handling of unreachable destinations or vertical movement constraints keeps this from a 5.
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 already provides 100% parameter documentation, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter meaning beyond schema: it refers to coordinates as the destination and clarifies the horizontal tolerance (1.5 blocks), but offers no additional insight into speed, player selection, or timeout beyond what the schema already states.
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 ('Walk') and identifies the target ('coordinates'), clearly distinguishing this tool from siblings like teleport or look_at. The mention of 'call stop to cancel' further clarifies its role as a continuous movement command.
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 when to use it (physical navigation) and explicitly references the 'stop' sibling for cancellation. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like teleport, so there are clear context cues but no explicit exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It clearly states this is a read operation and specifies what is returned, including the currently held hotbar slot. It also implies non-destructive behavior via the verb 'Read'. However, it does not mention any prerequisites beyond the player being online, which is covered in the schema.
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 main purpose and immediately lists the included components. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains exactly what inventory sections are returned and the default player behavior, making it sufficient for an agent to invoke 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 description coverage is 100% for the single optional 'player' parameter, so the schema fully documents it. The description adds value by listing the inventory contents but does not add further parameter semantics beyond the schema.
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 reads the player's inventory and enumerates all included sections (hotbar, main storage, armor, offhand, held slot). This specific verb+resource distinguishes it from siblings like get_player_state or get_block_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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (to read inventory contents) and the default behavior of the player parameter. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use it, but the scope is well-defined.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
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 transparently lists three specific behaviors: canceling move_to, stopping movement, and clearing sprint/sneak. It does not mention edge cases like what happens if the player is mid-air or if movement resumes, but for a simple stop command this is adequate.
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?
One concise sentence lists all effects without wasting words. It is front-loaded with the most important action ('Cancel any in-progress move_to') and fully covers the tool's purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with one optional parameter and no output schema. The description fully explains the tool's behavior and effects, making it complete for an agent to know how to invoke it. No additional context is needed.
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% for the single optional 'player' parameter, and the schema already describes it as 'Online player name (defaults to the first online player).' The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so it doesn't improve on the schema's guidance.
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 states exactly what the tool does: 'Cancel any in-progress move_to, stop the player's movement, and clear sprint/sneak.' It uses specific verbs and resources, listing three distinct effects, and clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like move_to, sprint, and sneak.
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 clearly implies its use cases: halt movement, cancel a move_to, or clear sprint/sneak. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but it's obvious from the action list when this tool should be used versus movement-starting or state-setting siblings.
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/IotA-asce/minecraft-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/IotA-asce/minecraft-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

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

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