Inspect a horizontal Minecraft structure layer as an exact character map with legend to verify block positions before rendering or editing.
One horizontal layer as a character map (rows = z, columns = x) with a legend. Cheap and exact — use it to check positions; use render/render_layer to see how it looks.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| y | Yes | ||
| name | Yes |
| 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?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the load, and it does disclose two real traits: the output is a legible character map with a legend, and it is cheap and exact (cost/precision tradeoff vs rendering). It leaves open prerequisites such as whether the structure must be opened first and what happens for an out-of-range y.
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 sentences, no filler; the return format is front-loaded and the routing advice follows immediately. Every clause earns its place.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and the description covers format and cost well. However, with two fully undocumented parameters and no annotations, the definition leaves the meaning of 'name' and the structure state requirements unaddressed.
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% and the description never mentions either required parameter. The axis convention implies y selects the layer, but 'name' (presumably the structure identifier) is entirely undocumented, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.
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 the specific resource and its exact form: one horizontal layer returned as a character map with row/column axes defined (rows = z, columns = x) plus a legend. It also differentiates itself from render/render_layer, so an agent can pick it without opening any schema.
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?
Explicitly splits the decision: use this to check positions, use render/render_layer to see appearance. That names both the condition and the alternative, leaving nothing for the agent to infer.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.