Minecraft Bedrock MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the tool builds spheres and gives coordinate examples, but lacks critical behavioral details: it doesn't specify if this is a destructive operation (overwrites existing blocks), what permissions are needed, whether there are rate limits, or what happens on failure. For a construction tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant 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?

The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the tool with examples, the second specifies parameters, and the third gives usage context. However, the initial list of synonyms ('ball, dome, round structure, planet, orb') is slightly redundant with 'SPHERE' in the name.

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?

Given the complexity (construction tool with 7 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose, parameters at a high level, and usage context, but lacks behavioral transparency (e.g., destructive effects, error handling) and doesn't explain return values. This leaves gaps for an AI agent to safely invoke the tool.

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 7 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it mentions coordinates can be positive or negative with examples, and implies radius sizing (Small/Medium/Large), but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the 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 spheres with specific examples (ball, dome, round structure, planet, orb) and mentions the required parameters (center coordinates + radius). It distinguishes from siblings like 'build_cube' and 'build_cylinder' by focusing on spherical structures, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'build_ellipsoid' or 'build_torus' which are also curved shapes.

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('Perfect for domes, decorations, planets, bubbles') and implies usage by specifying coordinate ranges and examples. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among sibling tools (e.g., use 'build_ellipsoid' for non-uniform spheres or 'build_torus' for ring shapes).

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