Queue mission macros for sequential execution by the Minecraft bridge, with an option to clear queued actions first.
Queue mission macros that the bridge should execute sequentially.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| clear | No | ||
| actions | 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. It discloses sequential execution, which is useful, but omits critical details such as whether queuing replaces existing missions, what the 'clear' flag does, error handling, or permission requirements.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to stating the action and the execution model.
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, the description is incomplete for a two-parameter queue tool with no annotations and zero schema descriptions. It lacks usage context, parameter meaning, and behavioral details about clearing or replacing queues.
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%, and the description only vaguely implies that 'mission macros' correspond to the required 'actions' parameter. It says nothing about the 'clear' boolean, leaving both parameters undocumented in schema and description.
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 uses a specific verb ('Queue') and resource ('mission macros'), and states the scope of sequential execution by the bridge. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish itself from siblings such as mission_macro or mission_checkpoint.
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 description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention mission_macro, batch_command, or other related tools, nor does it state prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.