Persist the active phase and optional note on the Minecraft/Fabric bridge to support checkpointed planning and evidence-driven verification during AI agent missions.
Persist the active phase/checkpoint on the bridge.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| note | No | ||
| phase | 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Persist' implies a write or state-saving operation, but there is no disclosure of whether it overwrites existing checkpoints, requires specific permissions, is idempotent, or has other side effects.
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?
The description is a single short sentence, which is concise, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently concise. It omits essential context that a tool with two undocumented parameters and no annotations needs.
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?
Although an output schema exists and need not be explained in the description, this definition remains incomplete for a state-persisting tool. With no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and many sibling tools, the description should clarify behavior, parameter roles, and when to use it.
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 loosely references 'phase' via 'active phase/checkpoint' but gives no format, required status, or meaning for the 'note' parameter, so it does not compensate for the schema gap.
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 action, 'Persist,' and an object, 'the active phase/checkpoint,' so the basic purpose is inferable. However, 'on the bridge' is opaque, and the description does not distinguish this tool from siblings like mission_macro, mission_queue, or broadcast_mission_state.
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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus related mission/state tools, nor are prerequisites or exclusions stated. The description provides only a bare purpose statement with no invocation context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.