Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
minecraft-mcp

minecraft-mcp

by IotA-asce
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Inspect a block

get_block_at

Find out which material occupies a specific block coordinate in Minecraft. Read the block type at given x, y, z with optional world and player names.

Instructions

Read which material occupies the block at the given coordinates.

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": {
      "x": "<x>",
      "y": "<y>",
      "z": "<z>"
    },
    "name": "get_block_at"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
xYesX coordinate
yYesY coordinate
zYesZ coordinate
worldNoWorld name (defaults to the player's current world)
playerNoOnline player name (defaults to the first online player)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
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.

Deploy Server

Other Tools