Reads and consumes newly buffered output and native execution state for a Minecraft task, enabling agents to monitor progress without filesystem access or duplicate output.
Read and consume newly buffered output for a task, plus its native execution state. No filesystem needed. Single-reader stream; no output is repeated. Bounded buffer reports dropped_chars on overflow.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task | Yes | ||
| wait_ms | No |
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 does well: it discloses no filesystem dependency, single-reader semantics, non-repeating output, and a bounded buffer that surfaces dropped_chars on overflow. It omits what happens on an empty buffer and whether the call blocks, which is the main remaining behavioral gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Four short sentences, each carrying distinct information (what it reads, no filesystem, single-reader non-repeating semantics, buffer overflow reporting), with the core purpose front-loaded. Nothing is wasted.
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?
There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description is the only source of contract detail. It covers stream behavior well but leaves the return shape and the wait_ms blocking semantics undefined, which matters for correct invocation of a streaming read.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0% for both parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. 'for a task' loosely ties to the task argument, but wait_ms — a blocking hint with a 0-10000ms range and default 0 — is never mentioned, leaving the agent unable to infer that it can wait for output.
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 and resource: read and consume newly buffered output for a task, plus its native execution state. Against siblings like execute, stop, screenshot and chat, it is unmistakably the output-retrieval tool, so no schema opening is needed to tell them apart.
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 implied by 'consume newly buffered output' and the single-reader warning, which tells the agent output is gone once read. However, it never states when to call this versus polling, nor what to do when no output is ready, and it names no alternatives among the siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.