Copy a box-shaped region of blocks from a source structure and paste it so its lowest corner lands at a chosen destination coordinate, duplicating any volume within a Minecraft build.
Copy a box (from source, default the same structure) so its lowest corner lands at dest.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x1 | Yes | ||
| x2 | Yes | ||
| y1 | Yes | ||
| y2 | Yes | ||
| z1 | Yes | ||
| z2 | Yes | ||
| name | Yes | ||
| dest_x | Yes | ||
| dest_y | Yes | ||
| dest_z | Yes | ||
| source | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it does not disclose whether the copy overwrites existing blocks, what happens at boundaries, or whether source and destination can overlap. It does mention the source default and lowest-corner alignment, which is useful but insufficient for a mutation tool.
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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. It is concise, though its brevity contributes to the broader completeness gaps.
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 an 11-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the description is far too sparse. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but coordinate semantics, overwrite behavior, and the name parameter remain unclear.
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%, so the description must explain the 11 parameters. It only clarifies source (optional, defaults to the same structure) and the destination corner concept, leaving the coordinate pairs and name parameter largely undefined.
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 states a specific verb and resource: copy a box/region from a source to a destination. It is more informative than the name alone and conveys the alignment rule, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as fill or replace_blocks.
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?
It gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like fill, replace_blocks, or set_blocks. The source/default behavior is mentioned, but exclusions and selection criteria are absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.