Minecraft Bedrock MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'builds' shapes and 'supports sequences for automation', but doesn't disclose whether this is a destructive operation, what permissions are needed, rate limits, or what happens if coordinates overlap existing structures. The description is insufficient for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

The description is efficiently structured in two sentences: first states purpose with examples, second covers coordinate ranges and automation support. It's appropriately sized with no redundant information, though it could be slightly more front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, coordinate system details beyond positive/negative values, or how 'sequences for automation' work. The description should provide more context given the tool's complexity and lack of structured metadata.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 9 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it mentions coordinates 'can be positive or negative' and 'supports sequences for automation', but doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide additional semantic context. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

The description clearly states the tool builds geometric shapes (cubes/rectangles) using two corner coordinates, with specific examples like 'box, rectangle, wall, platform, room, house frame'. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on rectangular prisms, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other shape-building tools like build_sphere or build_cylinder.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like build_sphere or build_cylinder. It mentions 'sequences for automation' but doesn't explain when this is preferable over other building methods. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.