minecraft-mcp

by IotA-asce

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

TypeScript

Local

Attack an entity

attack

Target and strike a specific entity once by providing its entity ID from get_nearby_entities.

Instructions

Face and attack an entity once. Use an entity id from get_nearby_entities.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "entity_id": "<entity_id>"
    },
    "name": "attack"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`player`	No	Online player name (defaults to the first online player)
`entity_id`	Yes	Entity id from get_nearby_entities

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 7, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

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.