Generate a top-down plan of one Minecraft structure layer with the floor below faded, plus grid and coordinates for clear layer inspection.
Top-down plan of one layer (with the floor below faded), grid and coordinates.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| y | Yes | ||
| cell | No | ||
| name | Yes | ||
| max_size | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the output's appearance — top-down view, floor below faded, grid and coordinate overlay — which is real behavioral value, but it says nothing about side effects (does it write a file? is it read-only?), permissions, or whether the structure must already be loaded.
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?
A single well-formed sentence with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler; the parenthetical for the faded floor is efficient. It is arguably over-terse given the parameter ambiguity, but nothing in it is wasted.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, an agent must still guess what 'name', 'cell', and 'max_size' expect and whether the call has any side effects. The output-appearance detail is welcome but does not compensate for these 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 description coverage is 0% across 4 parameters, and the description explains none of them. 'One layer' faintly hints that 'y' is the layer index, but 'name', 'cell' (default 20), and 'max_size' (default 900) are entirely opaque — 'cell' and 'max_size' in particular have no evident meaning without description text.
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 verb+resource ('top-down plan of one layer') and, by scoping to 'one layer', implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling 'render' which presumably covers the whole structure. That differentiation is inferable rather than stated outright, which keeps it from a 5.
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 phrase 'one layer' implies when this tool is appropriate versus the full 'render' sibling, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no named alternative, and no prerequisites (e.g., must a structure already be open?).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.