Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Minecraft Structure Lab

Minecraft Structure Lab

by ewitulsk
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

export_structure

Export verified structure revisions as clean NBT and vanilla datapack ZIP, removing all lab blocks.

Instructions

Export a verified revision as clean NBT plus a vanilla 26.2 datapack ZIP. No lab blocks survive.

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": {
      "revision": "<revision>",
      "output_path": "<output_path>"
    },
    "name": "export_structure"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNohouse
revisionYes
namespaceNolab_export
output_pathYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so description carries the burden. It discloses 'clean NBT' and 'No lab blocks survive' indicating cleaning behavior, and specifies version 26.2. However, it does not mention side effects like file overwriting, behavior for unverified revisions, or output path handling.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two sentences with no wasted words. It efficiently states the core action, output format, and a key behavioral constraint.

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?

With 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is too terse. It does not clarify required fields, what output_path refers to, or how revision relates to verification, leaving an agent to guess from parameter names.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not explain any of the four parameters (name, revision, namespace, output_path). Defaults exist but their meaning is left entirely to schema, so the description adds no parameter value.

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

Purpose4/5

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

Description states a specific verb 'Export' with resource 'verified revision' and output formats (NBT and datapack ZIP). It clearly distinguishes from generating tools, but does not explicitly contrast with siblings like generate_structure or submit_structure.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies a precondition (verified revision) but does not state when to choose this over generate_structure or submit_structure, nor when not to use it.

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