Configures a named Baritone setting with a value to control Minecraft automation through the mcbaratone bridge.
Set a Baritone setting. For booleans, the value is option (toggles if omitted in chat, but here we require value).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| value | 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 clarifies that value is required for booleans (no toggle behavior), which is useful, but does not state whether changes persist across sessions, what validation occurs, what happens on invalid names, or what the return value contains.
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?
Two efficient sentences with the core purpose front-loaded. The parenthetical about chat behavior is slightly tangential but still informative and brief.
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?
The tool has 2 required parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema cited. The description does not cover valid names, value types, persistence, or return behavior. It is incomplete for a configuration mutation tool.
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 (name and value). The description only hints that value type depends on the setting (boolean example) but does not enumerate valid setting names or value types. With no schema documentation and no compensation in the description, an agent has little help mapping values to settings.
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 (Set) and resource (Baritone setting), but does not explain what a Baritone setting is or distinguish this tool from sibling reset_setting, reset_all_settings, or get_modified_settings beyond the verb. Sibling differentiation is implied but not explicit.
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 on when to use set_setting versus reset_setting or get_modified_settings. The only usage note is about boolean toggling in chat, which is not a condition for choosing this tool over alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.