Perform a click at the destination on the screen where the player is looking, allowing AI agents to interact with the Minecraft world at the targeted location.
Click the destination on the screen (where player is looking).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and falls short. It never says what a click actually does — break a block, interact with an entity, open a GUI, trigger a right/left click — nor whether it has side effects or requirements. For an action tool with zero annotation coverage this is a meaningful gap.
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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, but the brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than true economy. It reads cleanly and is easy to scan.
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 and no parameters, the description is the only source for interaction semantics, and it only gestures at the target. An agent cannot tell what the click will affect or trigger, which is the key information needed to invoke this action safely.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to compensate for. Baseline 4 applies for a parameterless tool.
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 verb (click) and a loose target ('the destination on the screen'), with the parenthetical clarifying it means where the player is looking. However, 'destination' is ambiguous — it could mean a block, a GUI element, or a coordinate — and nothing distinguishes this action from sibling movement/interaction tools like path, thisway, or goto_block_type.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternative to reach for. The agent gets no condition, prerequisite, or context for choosing 'click' over the many navigation/interaction siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.