Places multiple blocks at once in a Minecraft structure using coordinates and block states, enabling bulk edits and removal of positions via 'void'.
Place many blocks at once: [{"x":1,"y":0,"z":2,"state":"oak_stairs[facing=east,half=bottom]"}, ...]. state "void" removes the position (left untouched when the structure is placed); "air" places air.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| blocks | 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does usefully disclose the special "void" semantics (removes the position, left untouched when the structure is placed) versus "air" (places air) — a genuinely non-obvious behavioral distinction. However it omits permission requirements, whether prior blocks are overwritten, and undo availability for what is clearly 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?
Three short sentences with the core action and example front-loaded, then the edge-case state values. Dense but every sentence carries information; minor cost is that the example arrives before the reader knows what name refers to.
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 need not be described. For a two-parameter mutation tool with zero schema coverage and no annotations, the description still leaves gaps: the name parameter and the structural prerequisites for placing blocks are 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% for both parameters. The description compensates for the blocks parameter by giving an explicit object example with x/y/z/state keys and explaining the state field's special values. The required name parameter is never mentioned, leaving its meaning and relationship to the siblings' structure names undocumented.
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 and resource: "Place many blocks at once" with an inline example payload, which is unambiguous about what the tool does. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling tools replace_blocks, fill, or set_block_nbt, so an agent must infer which bulk-write tool applies.
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 statement of when to prefer this over fill, replace_blocks, or set_block_nbt, and no prerequisites such as whether a structure must be open or named first. The only usage hint is the embedded example, which shows syntax rather than selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.