Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
craftpilot-mcp

craftpilot-mcp

by laur221
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

mc_type

Types text character by character into the currently focused Minecraft field or screen, enabling AI assistants to enter chat messages, commands, or form values.

Instructions

Type text into the focused field/screen, character by character.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "text": "<text>"
    },
    "name": "mc_type"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
textYesText to type

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. "Character by character" usefully signals slow, per-character input events, but it does not say whether text appends or replaces existing content, whether Enter/special characters are sent, or how failures surface when no field is focused.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and target, with the character-by-character detail tacked on where it is most useful. Nothing is redundant.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter input tool with no output schema this is close to adequate, but with zero annotations the description should at least state the focus precondition and error behavior. Those omissions are the main remaining gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% for the single "text" parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no encoding, escaping, or length semantics beyond what the schema already states.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a concrete verb and target ("Type text into the focused field/screen") plus a delivery mode ("character by character"). It is distinguishable from siblings like mc_command or mc_chat only by inference, since neither alternative is named.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase "the focused field/screen" implies a precondition (something must already be focused, e.g. via mc_click or mc_key), but this is never made explicit. No guidance on when to prefer this over mc_key or mc_chat, and no statement of what happens if nothing is focused.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools