Presses the attack (left-click) key for a chosen number of ticks to trigger Minecraft attacks.
Press the attack (left-click) key for N ticks.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "mc_attack"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ticks | No | Ticks to hold (default 1) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it only discloses that the key is held for N ticks. It says nothing about whether this attacks continuously during the hold, whether it works on blocks or only entities, what happens if no target is in reach, or whether the call blocks until the ticks elapse. For an input-simulation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
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?
One short sentence, front-loaded with the action and immediately qualified by the duration parameter. There is no filler or redundancy.
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?
For a simple, single-optional-parameter input tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials of what it does and the duration knob. It falls short only on behavior under failure or interaction with the other input-simulation siblings, which a slightly longer description could address.
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 100% and the single 'ticks' parameter is already documented with its default and bounds, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description restates the hold-duration semantics but adds no information about tick rate, blocking behavior, or timing granularity beyond what the schema says.
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 gives a concrete verb and resource — 'Press the attack (left-click) key for N ticks' — and clarifies that 'attack' means the left-click input, which separates it from a right-click style tool. It does not name the sibling it differs from (e.g., mc_use for right-click), so an agent must infer the distinction from semantics rather than being told.
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?
Usage is only implied through the word 'attack', which suggests combat or hitting a target, but there is no explicit statement of when to call this versus mc_use, mc_click, or mc_key. No exclusions, prerequisites (e.g., target in range, item equipped), or alternative routing are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.