Create an isometric image of a Minecraft structure using the game's textures, choose a view corner, and hide blocks above a cut height to inspect interior rooms.
Isometric render with the game's textures. view = the corner you look from; cut_y hides everything above that height (see inside rooms). Also saved under /renders/.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| view | No | se | |
| cut_y | No | ||
| scale | No | ||
| max_size | No |
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 burden. It does disclose useful behavior: output is persisted to <workspace>/renders/ and cut_y removes geometry above a height to expose interiors. It omits return behavior (inline image vs. path), persistence/overwrite semantics, and any size or performance limits, which matter for a render operation.
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?
Three short clauses, front-loaded with what the tool produces, then the two non-obvious parameters. Dense and free of filler; only the trailing side-effect note is slightly detached from the parameter explanations.
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?
No output schema and no annotations means the description is the only source of truth, yet it says nothing about what the agent receives back, whether an open structure is required, or what scale/max_size control. For a 5-parameter render tool this leaves significant gaps.
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 coverage is 0% across 5 parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains view and cut_y reasonably well, but leaves the required 'name' parameter, 'scale' and 'max_size' completely undefined, so more than half the inputs remain opaque.
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 action and output: an isometric render using the game's textures. That is clearly distinct from the layer-oriented sibling render_layer, though the description never names render_layer explicitly to sharpen the contrast.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus render_layer, nor any prerequisites such as whether the structure must be opened first or what 'name' refers to. The only contextual clue is an incidental note that output is saved under <workspace>/renders/.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.