Displays progress messages in the player's local Minecraft client as [AGENT] messages, using config tags/colors; does not send server messages or run commands.
Display a progress message in English in the player’s local Minecraft chat as [AGENT] message. Tag, optional name, and colors come from config. Does NOT send server chat or execute chat commands.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| message | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add real behavioral facts: the message is local-only, it is not server chat, it cannot run commands, and tag/colors are config-driven. It omits whether the message is ephemeral or persisted, whether it requires permissions, and what the call returns on failure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two tight sentences: the capability and its rendering first, the exclusions second. No filler, and the most important constraint is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter, no-output-schema display tool this is close to complete: it says where the text appears, how it is formatted, and what it will not do. The main residual gap is error/return behavior, which the description does not mention.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Only one parameter and 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds useful meaning ("progress message in English", the [AGENT] prefix, tag/colors from config), but the 1–2000 character constraint lives only in the schema and the parameter itself is never explicitly named or explained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb ("display") and resource ("progress message in ... local Minecraft chat"), and pins down the rendering format including the [AGENT] prefix. It also carves itself away from server chat and command execution, which implicitly separates it from the `execute` sibling, though it never names that sibling.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is only implied: it is for showing progress messages to the player. There is no explicit when-to-use, no mention of when to prefer `execute` or `read_output`, and no stated preconditions (e.g. player must be online, rate expectations).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.