Respawn the player and close the death screen to quickly resume gameplay after dying.
Respawn the player and close the death screen.
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_respawn"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one concrete behavioral effect beyond the name: the death screen is closed. It does not say whether respawn is instant, whether inventory/position is reset, or whether any permission or state requirement applies, leaving meaningful gaps for a state-changing action.
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 short sentence, front-loaded with the primary action and appended with the secondary effect; no filler or redundant restatement of the title.
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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema action this is close to sufficient: the agent knows what to call and what it accomplishes. It falls short only on preconditions and post-state (whether the player is restored in place or at a spawn point), which would matter for correct sequencing.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless schema applies. The description correctly implies no input is required.
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?
Names a specific verb and resource ("Respawn the player") plus a concrete side effect ("close the death screen"), which tells an agent exactly what changes. It is distinguishable from all listed siblings (movement, chat, inventory, screen) since none handle respawn, though it does not explicitly name a contrast case.
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 mention of "the death screen" implies the tool applies while the player is dead, but the description never states that precondition explicitly nor says what happens if invoked while alive. No alternatives or exclusions are named; usage is only inferable from context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.