Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
minecraft-structure-mcp

minecraft-structure-mcp

by WebitroHQ
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

structure_info

Retrieve a Minecraft structure's size, total block count, and top-used block states by name to analyze builds before editing or saving.

Instructions

Size, block count and the most used block states.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "structure_info"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
topNo
nameYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does little. It implies a read-only inspection of a structure but never says so, nor does it mention permissions, whether the tool mutates state, or how the `name` is resolved.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The single sentence fragment is terse to the point of under-specification rather than efficient. It is short but not structured: no verb, no subject, no routing information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The presence of an output schema means return shape needn't be described, but for a two-parameter tool with a required `name` and an ambiguous `top`, the description leaves key calling details unanswered (what name means, what top limits, prerequisites).

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the parameters, and it does not. `name` is completely unexplained, and `top` (default 25) is only obliquely hinted at by 'most used block states' with no stated link between the parameter and the limit.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The fragment 'Size, block count and the most used block states' conveys what data comes back from a structure, but there is no verb and no resource statement beyond the name 'structure_info'. It also fails to distinguish itself from siblings like list_structures or render, which an agent could plausibly confuse it with.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus list_structures, open_structure, or render. Nothing states prerequisites, such as whether the named structure must already be open or loaded.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools