Gives Minecraft items by English item ID through protocol-level slot changes, so non-OP players can obtain items or clear their inventory in creative mode.
创造模式直接获取物品（协议级改槽位，非 OP 也能用）。给英文物品 id，如 oak_planks / diamond_sword / white_concrete。clearAll=true 清空背包。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | 物品英文 id（如 oak_planks） | |
| slot | No | 指定槽位 9-44（缺省自动找空位） | |
| count | No | 数量（默认 1，上限堆叠数） | |
| clearAll | No | true=清空背包（忽略 name） |
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 and does well: it discloses the protocol-level slot mechanism, that non-OP users can invoke it, and that clearAll=true wipes the inventory (a destructive side effect). It omits failure behavior, anti-cheat/server-side risk, and whether creative mode is strictly required.
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, front-loaded clauses: capability, examples, and the clearAll edge case. Nothing is wasted and the most important fact (protocol-level, non-OP usable) comes first.
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?
For a 4-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers mechanism, permission scope, and the destructive clearAll path. Only the return value and the creative-mode enforcement question remain unaddressed, which is a minor gap.
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 100%, so the schema already documents name, slot, count and clearAll. The description reinforces the item-id format with examples and restates clearAll's clearing behavior, but adds no syntax or constraint meaning beyond the schema.
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?
The description states a specific verb and resource: directly obtain items in creative mode, with concrete id examples (oak_planks / diamond_sword / white_concrete) and the mechanism named (protocol-level slot modification). It does not distinguish itself from siblings like mc_craft or mc_kit_express, so it falls short of 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?
It implies the operating condition (creative mode) and notes it works without OP, which is real usage context, and clearAll=true's effect is stated. However, it never says when to choose this over mc_craft (craft from materials) or mc_inventory, so routing guidance is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.