Invoke a named mission macro with parameters or consume queued macros by setting dequeue to true, letting AI agents run checkpointed Minecraft actions safely.
Invoke a mission macro or consume the queued macros (dequeue=True).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| params | No | ||
| dequeue | No |
| 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. It does disclose the dual behavior of invoking versus dequeuing, which is useful, but says nothing about side effects, authorization, async execution, whether macros mutate mission state, or what dequeue consumes.
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 compact sentence with the alternate mode placed last, so nothing is wasted. It is arguably too terse for the burden it must carry, but structure itself is clean.
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, 0% parameter coverage, and sibling tools like mission_queue left unaddressed, the description omits too much for a 3-parameter mission-control tool. The existing output schema excuses it from explaining return values, but little else.
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% across 3 parameters. The description clarifies the meaning of dequeue=True, adding genuine value, but leaves 'name' (required) and 'params' entirely unexplained, including how name interacts with the dequeue mode.
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 verb (invoke) and resource (mission macro), plus a second mode (consume queued macros). It does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like mission_queue or mission_checkpoint, but the core action is unambiguous.
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?
The only guidance is the inline hint '(dequeue=True)', with no explanation of when to invoke a named macro versus consuming the queue, and no mention of the related mission_queue sibling. An agent must guess the selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.