Save a Minecraft waypoint by name; if coordinates are omitted, the current position is used. This records locations for later navigation and checkpoints.
Save a waypoint. Uses current position if coordinates are not provided.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x | Yes | ||
| y | Yes | ||
| z | Yes | ||
| name | 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 one useful trait — that missing coordinates fall back to current position — but says nothing about overwrite behavior on duplicate names, persistence across sessions, or required permissions for a write operation.
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 short sentences with the primary action front-loaded and the fallback behavior immediately after. No filler, nothing redundant.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. But for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage and 0% parameter description coverage, the description should do more to cover write semantics such as name collisions or overwrite behavior.
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%, so the description must compensate, and it does explain the key ambiguity: x/y/z can be omitted in favor of current position. However, the schema marks all four as required, and the description never clarifies that the `name` parameter is mandatory or how to pass null coordinates, leaving a 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 verb and resource ("Save a waypoint"), which is unambiguous. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like wp_list, wp_delete, or wp_goal, but the verb makes the distinction inferable. Clear but without sibling differentiation.
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 versus wp_goal, save_all, or wp_delete, nor any stated prerequisites. The only usage hint is the coordinate fallback, which is about parameter behavior rather than tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.