Minecraft MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes, but some overlap exists. For example, 'cookItem' and 'smeltItem' both involve furnace operations, which could cause confusion, and 'mineResource' and 'harvestMatureCrops' both involve gathering but target different resources. However, descriptions help clarify these distinctions, and overall, the set is well-differentiated for a Minecraft domain.
Naming Consistency3/5
The naming is mixed with no consistent pattern. Some tools use verb_noun (e.g., 'buildPixelArt', 'craftItems'), others use verbOnly (e.g., 'dance', 'rest'), and a few use verb_preposition_noun (e.g., 'useItemOnBlockOrEntity'). While readable, the lack of a uniform convention reduces predictability and coherence across the tool set.
Tool Count3/5
With 32 tools, the count is borderline high for a Minecraft server, as it may feel heavy and overwhelming. However, given the broad scope of Minecraft activities (building, combat, farming, etc.), many tools are justified, but some consolidation or better scoping could improve manageability without being extreme.
Completeness5/5
The tool set provides comprehensive coverage of Minecraft gameplay, including core actions like building, mining, crafting, combat, navigation, and social interactions. It supports full lifecycles (e.g., farming from preparation to harvest, furnace operations from smelting to retrieval) and leaves no obvious gaps, enabling agents to handle a wide range of in-game scenarios effectively.
Average 2.9/5 across 32 of 32 tools scored. Lowest: 2.2/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but fails to do so. It does not indicate whether this action is read-only or mutative, what happens upon opening (e.g., displays contents, triggers events, consumes resources), potential side effects, or any limitations (e.g., cooldowns, permissions). The vague phrasing offers no actionable insights beyond the basic verb.
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?
The description is extremely concise with a single, direct sentence: 'Open a nearby chest.' It is front-loaded and wastes no words, making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence contributes to the core idea, though the content itself is minimal.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for effective tool use. It does not explain what 'open' entails behaviorally, what the result might be (e.g., item access, game state change), or how it interacts with the game environment. For a tool with potential mutative effects in a game context, this leaves significant gaps in understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately does not discuss parameters, and since there are none, it meets the baseline expectation without requiring compensation for gaps. However, it does not add any semantic context beyond the schema, such as implicit environmental requirements.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Open a nearby chest' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'openNearbyChest' without adding meaningful specificity. It does not clarify what 'open' entails in this context (e.g., accessing contents, triggering an animation, or interacting with a game object) or distinguish it from sibling tools like 'openInventory' or 'retrieveItemsFromNearbyFurnace' that might involve similar container interactions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., requiring a chest to be nearby), exclusions (e.g., not usable if no chest exists), or comparisons to siblings like 'openInventory' for personal storage or 'retrieveItemsFromNearbyFurnace' for specific container types, leaving the agent with no context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Open the bot's inventory' doesn't reveal whether this is a read-only operation, whether it modifies state, what permissions are required, what happens if the bot has no inventory, or what the expected outcome is. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this description provides almost no behavioral information.
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?
The description is extremely concise at just four words. It's front-loaded with the core action and doesn't waste words. For such a simple tool with no parameters, this brevity is appropriate rather than under-specified.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the context of a gaming bot with many sibling tools, this description is inadequate. There's no output schema, no annotations, and the description doesn't explain what 'opening' the inventory means operationally - whether it displays items, enables other actions, or has side effects. For a tool in this complex ecosystem, more context is needed about what this enables and how it differs from other inventory interactions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (though trivial since there are no parameters). The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it doesn't attempt to. With no parameters to document, the baseline for this dimension is 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Open the bot's inventory' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'openInventory'. It doesn't provide any additional specificity about what 'opening the inventory' entails or what resource is being accessed. While it's clear this involves an inventory, it doesn't distinguish this from other inventory-related tools like 'dropItem', 'equipItem', or 'giveItemToSomeone'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing to be in a game or have items), appropriate contexts, or what this tool enables that other inventory tools don't. With many sibling tools that interact with inventory items, this lack of differentiation is problematic.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions actions like 'attack, kill, defend' but doesn't specify consequences (e.g., health loss, item drops, aggression triggers), permissions required, or rate limits. For a combat tool with potential destructive effects, this lack of detail leaves critical behavioral traits undisclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence: 'Attack, kill, defend against, or initiate combat with someone'. It's front-loaded with key actions and avoids redundancy. However, it could be more structured by separating attack/defense scenarios or including brief context, but it earns high marks for zero waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (combat actions with 4 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover return values (e.g., success/failure, damage dealt), error conditions, or game-specific rules. For a tool that could have significant in-game impact, more context is needed to guide safe and effective use.
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%, so the schema already documents all parameters (count, duration, targetName, targetType). The description adds no meaning beyond the schema—it doesn't explain how parameters interact (e.g., if targetName overrides targetType) or provide usage examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool's purpose as 'Attack, kill, defend against, or initiate combat with someone', which is clear but vague. It uses specific verbs (attack, kill, defend, initiate combat) but doesn't specify what resource or entity is involved beyond 'someone'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'hunt' or 'runAway' by focusing on direct combat, but lacks precision about the combat system or game mechanics.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing a weapon or being in combat mode, nor does it compare to siblings like 'hunt' (which might be for animals) or 'runAway' (for fleeing). Without explicit when/when-not instructions, the agent must infer usage from context alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether dropping is permanent, if items can be retrieved, what happens when dropped near a player (e.g., visibility or ownership), or any rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action, though it could be slightly more informative given the lack of other context. It earns its place but leaves room for improvement in clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the outcome (e.g., where items go, if they're destroyed, or return values), behavioral constraints, or error conditions. Given the complexity of dropping items in a game context, more detail is needed to guide an agent effectively.
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%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying the action involves items from inventory, which is already inferred from the tool name and parameter 'name'. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter semantics adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Drop items from inventory' clearly states the action (drop) and target (items from inventory), but it's somewhat vague about scope and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'giveItemToSomeone' or 'placeItemNearYou' which also involve item disposition. It specifies the source (inventory) but lacks detail about destination or effect.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing items in inventory), exclusions (e.g., cannot drop equipped items), or compare to siblings like 'giveItemToSomeone' for transferring items to others or 'placeItemNearYou' for placing items in the world.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('use') but does not explain what happens during use (e.g., item consumption, block interaction effects, entity reactions, permissions needed, or error conditions). For a tool with no annotations and potential mutative effects, this lack of detail 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, straightforward sentence with no wasted words, making it efficient and front-loaded. However, it is overly concise to the point of under-specification, lacking necessary details for a tool with potential complex interactions. While structurally sound, it could benefit from more informative content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a tool that likely involves mutative actions (using items), the description is incomplete. It does not cover behavioral aspects, return values, or error handling, leaving gaps in understanding how the tool operates. For a 3-parameter tool in a context-rich environment with many siblings, more context is needed.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear parameter definitions (e.g., 'item' as name of item, 'target' as block or entity, 'count' as optional number of uses). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Use an item on a block or entity' states a verb ('use') and resources ('item', 'block or entity'), which provides a basic purpose. However, it is vague about what 'use' entails (e.g., applying, interacting, consuming) and does not differentiate from siblings like 'placeItemNearYou' or 'giveItemToSomeone', which involve similar actions with items and targets. The purpose is clear but lacks specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or context for choosing this over siblings such as 'placeItemNearYou' (for placing items) or 'giveItemToSomeone' (for giving items to entities). Without any usage instructions, the agent must infer based on the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Hunt animals or mobs' implies an action with potential outcomes (e.g., resource gathering, combat), but it doesn't describe what happens during or after the hunt, such as success conditions, item drops, or risks. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is inadequate.
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?
The description is extremely concise at three words, front-loaded with the core action. Every word earns its place by specifying the verb and target types, with no wasted text. This is efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a hunting action with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain behavioral aspects, return values, or usage context, making it insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's operation and outcomes.
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?
The description adds no meaning beyond the input schema, which has 100% coverage with clear parameter descriptions (e.g., 'Number to hunt', 'Type of target'). Since the schema fully documents the parameters, the baseline score is 3, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Hunt animals or mobs' states the basic action and target types, which clarifies the tool's purpose. However, it's vague about the specific mechanics (e.g., hunting vs. attacking) and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'attackSomeone' or 'mineResource', which could involve similar actions on entities. It avoids tautology but lacks specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., in-game environment), or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone. With many sibling tools involving entity interaction, this lack of differentiation is a significant gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('mine') but doesn't describe traits like whether it consumes time/tools, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what happens on success/failure (e.g., items added to inventory). This leaves critical behavioral aspects unclear for a mutation-like operation.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly, which is ideal for conciseness in a tool definition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with two parameters and a likely mutation action ('mine'). It lacks details on behavior, return values, or error conditions, making it inadequate for the agent to fully understand how to invoke it correctly in context.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear parameter descriptions ('Number of blocks to mine', 'Name of the block/resource to mine'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as examples of valid names or constraints on count, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Mine specific blocks or resources' states a verb ('mine') and resource ('blocks or resources'), providing a basic purpose. However, it's vague about what 'mine' entails in this context (e.g., breaking blocks, collecting resources) and doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'harvestMatureCrops' or 'pickupItem', which could involve similar resource-gathering actions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing tools), exclusions (e.g., cannot mine certain blocks), or compare to siblings like 'harvestMatureCrops' for crops or 'pickupItem' for loose items, leaving the agent to guess based on context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('cook') but does not explain outcomes, permissions, resource consumption, or error conditions. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and directly states the tool's purpose, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, results, or error handling, which are crucial for an AI agent to use the tool effectively.
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%, so the input schema fully documents the parameters. The description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints, resulting in a baseline score.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('cook') and resource ('an item in a furnace'), making the purpose understandable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'smeltItem' or 'craftItems', which might involve similar furnace-based operations, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this specific tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'smeltItem' or 'craftItems'. The description lacks context about prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios, leaving the agent without clear usage instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the action without disclosing behavioral traits. It doesn't mention if crafting consumes resources, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what happens on failure (e.g., insufficient materials). This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It front-loads the core action ('craft items') and provides essential context ('using a crafting table or inventory') without unnecessary details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a crafting operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on resource consumption, success/failure outcomes, and doesn't explain return values, making it inadequate for safe and effective use by an AI agent.
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?
The input schema has 100% coverage, fully describing 'count' and 'item' parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as examples of item names or constraints on count values, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('craft items') and the context ('using a crafting table or inventory'), which distinguishes it from siblings like 'buildSomething' or 'smeltItem'. However, it doesn't specify what types of items can be crafted or differentiate from 'cookItem', leaving some ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'buildSomething' or 'cookItem'. The description mentions 'crafting table or inventory' but doesn't explain prerequisites, such as needing specific materials or access to these resources.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the action ('dance by moving and jumping') but does not cover critical aspects like whether it's safe, requires specific conditions, has side effects (e.g., attracting attention), or what happens upon completion (e.g., bot returns to idle). This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple action, with no wasted information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and lack of output schema, the description is minimal. It does not explain what 'dancing' entails in this context (e.g., visual effects, duration defaults, or interaction with the environment), making it incomplete for effective use without additional assumptions.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, documenting both parameters ('name' and 'time') clearly. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining typical dance moves or time constraints, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without extra value.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('make the bot dance') and the method ('by moving and jumping'), which is specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'runAway' or 'rest', which could involve movement, so it lacks sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as for entertainment, evasion, or celebration in the context of sibling tools like 'runAway' or 'sendChat'. It only states what the tool does without context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It states the action but doesn't disclose effects (e.g., stat changes, durability usage), permissions needed, or error conditions (e.g., if item not owned). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves beyond the basic verb.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core action and resource, making it immediately understandable. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying item types, enhancing clarity without verbosity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a mutation tool. It lacks details on effects, return values, or error handling, which are crucial for an agent to use it correctly. The high schema coverage helps with inputs, but overall context is insufficient for safe and effective tool invocation.
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%, with the parameter 'name' clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying the item must be of type armor, tool, or weapon, which is already suggested by the tool's purpose. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('equip') and resource ('item'), specifying the types of items (armor, tool, or weapon). It distinguishes from some siblings like 'useItemOnBlockOrEntity' or 'dropItem', but could better differentiate from 'openInventory' or 'craftItems' which might involve equipping indirectly. The purpose is specific but not fully optimized for sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing the item in inventory), exclusions (e.g., cannot equip if already equipped), or direct alternatives among siblings like 'useItemOnBlockOrEntity'. Usage is implied from the action but lacks context for decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Give items' implies a transfer operation that likely requires ownership of items and permission to interact, but the description doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it consumes items from the giver's inventory, requires proximity or online status of the recipient, or has any rate limits or cooldowns. It's minimal and lacks critical context for safe use.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste: 'Give items to another player'. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's purpose, making it easy to parse without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a mutation tool with 3 parameters. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like inventory changes, error conditions, or return values. For a tool that modifies game state, more context is needed to ensure correct and safe invocation by an AI agent.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear parameter descriptions (e.g., 'Number of items to give'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining item types or user validation. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.
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?
The description 'Give items to another player' clearly states the action (give) and resource (items), specifying the recipient (another player). It distinguishes from siblings like 'dropItem' or 'pickupItem' by involving transfer to another player, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all similar tools like 'sendChat' which might involve communication rather than item transfer.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing items in inventory), exclusions (e.g., cannot give to self), or compare to siblings like 'dropItem' for discarding items or 'sendChat' for communication. Usage is implied but not explicitly defined.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether navigation is instant or takes time, if it requires specific permissions or game states, what happens on failure (e.g., blocked path), or any side effects (e.g., consuming resources).
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, making it immediately understandable without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens after navigation (e.g., success/failure response, time taken, state changes) or address the complexity of coordinate-based movement in a game context with potential obstacles or restrictions.
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%, so the schema fully documents all parameters (x, y, z as coordinates, name as optional location identifier). The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying coordinate-based navigation, which is already clear from the parameter names. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
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?
The description 'Navigate to specific coordinates' clearly states the action (navigate) and target (specific coordinates), which distinguishes it from most siblings like 'goToSomeone' or 'lookAround'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all movement-related siblings like 'runAway' or 'swimToLand' in terms of coordinate-based vs. target-based navigation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., being in a game world), exclusions (e.g., not usable while sleeping), or comparisons to siblings like 'goToSomeone' (for entity-based movement) or 'runAway' (for fleeing).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but only states the basic action without disclosing behavioral traits like whether navigation is immediate or gradual, if it requires line-of-sight, or potential risks (e.g., getting stuck). This is inadequate for a tool with parameters that imply ongoing behavior.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it easy to parse and front-loaded with the core purpose, though it could benefit from more detail given the lack of other context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It fails to explain the tool's behavior, return values, or how parameters interact (e.g., effects of 'keepFollowing'), leaving significant gaps in understanding for effective use.
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%, so the schema fully documents parameters like 'distance' and 'keepFollowing'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining how 'keepFollowing' affects interaction or default behaviors, meeting the baseline for high coverage.
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?
The description 'Navigate to another player' clearly states the action (navigate) and target (another player), distinguishing it from siblings like 'goToKnownLocation' which targets a location, but it lacks specificity on the navigation method (e.g., walking, teleporting) which could improve differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'goToKnownLocation' for locations or 'runAway' for fleeing, and it does not mention prerequisites such as the player being online or visible, leaving usage context unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('harvest') but doesn't clarify if this is destructive (removes crops), has side effects (e.g., yields items, affects farmland), requires specific conditions (e.g., tools, permissions), or details response behavior. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core action and target, making it immediately understandable without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a mutation tool (implied by 'harvest') with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what happens after harvesting (e.g., items gained, effects on crops/farmland), error conditions, or behavioral traits. The schema covers parameters well, but overall context for safe and effective use is insufficient.
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%, with clear parameter descriptions in the schema ('number of crops to harvest', 'search radius'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying 'nearby farmland' relates to radius, but doesn't explain units, defaults, or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles most documentation.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('harvest') and target resource ('mature crops from nearby farmland'), which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential sibling tools like 'pickupItem' or 'retrieveItemsFromNearbyFurnace', which might involve similar collection actions in different contexts.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing mature crops available), exclusions (e.g., not for immature crops), or comparisons to siblings like 'pickupItem' for general item collection. The context is implied but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the action ('spawn a bot'). It doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a one-time connection, if it requires authentication, what happens on failure, or if it's idempotent. This is inadequate for a tool that likely involves network interaction.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's purpose, earning its place without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens after spawning (e.g., bot state, return values, error handling) or address complexity like network dependencies. For a tool with potential side effects, more context is needed.
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%, so the schema fully documents parameters (host, port, username). The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying these are for server connection and bot identity, which is already clear from schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema does the work.
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?
The description 'Spawn a bot into the Minecraft game' clearly states the action (spawn) and target (bot into game), distinguishing it from siblings like 'leaveGame' or 'readChat'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other entry-point tools (none in siblings), so it's not a perfect 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., server must be running), when not to use it (e.g., if already in game), or relate to siblings like 'leaveGame'. This leaves usage context unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose effects (e.g., if disconnection is permanent, requires permissions, or affects game state), rate limits, or error conditions, leaving significant gaps for a mutation tool.
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?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, return values, or error handling, which are critical for an agent to use this tool correctly in a game context with siblings like 'joinGame'.
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%, so parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning beyond implying disconnection, aligning with the baseline score when the schema handles parameter documentation effectively.
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?
The description 'Disconnect a bot from the game' clearly states the action (disconnect) and target (a bot from the game). It distinguishes from siblings like 'joinGame' but doesn't specify if it's for the current bot or others, making it slightly less specific than a perfect 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., must be in a game), exclusions, or related tools like 'runAway' or 'sleepInNearbyBed' that might serve similar purposes in different contexts.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a mutation (picking up changes item ownership/location) but doesn't specify permissions needed, whether it's reversible, rate limits, or what happens on failure (e.g., if item isn't nearby). This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely modifies game state.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and context, making it immediately understandable without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., success conditions, error cases), output format, or integration with sibling tools. Given the complexity of game interactions, more context is needed for effective use.
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%, with the single parameter 'itemName' documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying the item must be on the ground, which is already covered by the tool's purpose. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('pick up') and target ('items from the ground'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'retrieveItemsFromNearbyFurnace' or 'openNearbyChest', which might involve similar item acquisition in different contexts.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing to be near items), exclusions (e.g., not working on equipped items), or comparisons to siblings like 'retrieveItemsFromNearbyFurnace' for furnace-specific retrieval.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool performs a placement action but doesn't describe what 'near' means (distance, orientation), whether it consumes the item, requires specific permissions, or has side effects (e.g., environmental changes). This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It front-loads the core action ('Place a block or item') and adds necessary context ('near the bot'). Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a mutation action with 2 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain behavioral traits, return values, or error conditions. For a placement tool in a game-like context, more detail on constraints and outcomes is needed.
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%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('itemName' and optional 'userName'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying placement near the bot or a player, which is covered by the schema's descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('Place') and resource ('a block or item'), specifying it occurs 'near the bot'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'dropItem' or 'useItemOnBlockOrEntity' by focusing on placement rather than discarding or interaction. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'buildSomething' or 'buildPixelArt', which might involve similar placement actions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing the item in inventory), exclusions (e.g., cannot place in restricted areas), or comparisons to siblings like 'buildSomething' for structured construction. Usage is implied by the action but lacks explicit context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the types of messages returned (player, system, whispers, etc.), which adds some context, but fails to cover critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or how recent messages are defined. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that interacts with server data.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and lists return types. It avoids unnecessary words, but could be slightly improved by structuring it into two sentences for better readability (e.g., separating purpose from return details).
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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers what the tool does and return types, but lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, and output format, leaving the agent with incomplete information for optimal use.
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?
The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents all four parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining interactions between parameters or default behaviors. This meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.
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?
The description clearly states the verb ('Read') and resource ('recent chat messages from the server'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'sendChat' beyond the obvious read vs. send distinction, which is why it's a 4 rather than a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any contextual prerequisites. It simply states what it does without indicating scenarios for its use, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'regain health' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this consumes resources, has cooldowns, requires specific conditions (e.g., safe location), or what happens if interrupted. For a health-restoration tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical gaps in understanding its operation.
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?
The description is extremely concise ('Rest to regain health')—just four words that directly state the action and outcome. It's front-loaded with no wasted words, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly. Every element earns its place by conveying core functionality.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a health-related action, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain how much health is regained, any dependencies or side effects, or what the tool returns (e.g., success/failure, health amount). For a tool in a game-like context with many siblings, more detail is needed to use it effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 1 parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema fully documents the 'restTime' parameter. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying health restoration, which is appropriate given the high schema coverage. The baseline for 0 parameters would be 4, but with 1 well-documented parameter, this remains adequate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the purpose ('Rest to regain health') which includes a verb ('rest') and outcome ('regain health'), but it's vague about the mechanism and doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'sleepInNearbyBed' or 'eatFood' which might also restore health. It provides basic functionality but lacks specificity about how this differs from other recovery methods.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'sleepInNearbyBed', 'eatFood', and 'useItemOnBlockOrEntity' that might also restore health, there's no indication of prerequisites, timing, or comparative effectiveness. The agent must infer usage from context alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It implies a movement action to evade danger but doesn't disclose critical traits like whether this consumes stamina, has cooldowns, requires line-of-sight to the threat, or what happens if no threat exists. For a safety-related 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('run away') and immediately specifies the purpose ('from a threat'), making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral outcomes (e.g., success/failure conditions, side effects), doesn't explain the relationship between parameters (e.g., if targetName overrides targetType), and provides no error handling context. Given the complexity and safety implications, more guidance is needed.
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%, so the schema fully documents all three parameters (runDistance, targetName, targetType) with descriptions and types. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as clarifying threat prioritization or distance units. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('run away') and the target ('from a threat'), which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'swimToLand' or 'goToKnownLocation' which might also be used for evasion, though the threat-specific context provides some distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a threat present), exclusions (e.g., not usable indoors), or compare to siblings like 'swimToLand' for water threats or 'goToKnownLocation' for general movement. The agent must infer usage from context alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose what 'sleep' does (e.g., health restoration, time passage, side effects), success/failure conditions, or environmental requirements (e.g., bed availability, safety).
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('find and sleep'), making it immediately understandable and appropriately sized for the tool's apparent simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that likely involves game mechanics like health effects or time changes. It lacks details on outcomes, failure modes, or context needed for reliable agent use beyond the basic action stated.
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%, so the parameter 'maxDistance' is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying 'nearby' relates to distance, matching the baseline for high schema coverage.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('find and sleep') and target resource ('bed'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'rest' or specify what 'sleep' entails in this context, preventing a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'rest' or 'goToKnownLocation'. The description implies proximity-based usage ('nearby'), but lacks explicit conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions for effective tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'smelt' implies a transformative action, it doesn't specify whether this consumes fuel permanently, destroys the original items, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, making it immediately scannable and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, or behavioral implications like resource consumption. Given the complexity of a smelting operation, more context is needed to use this tool effectively.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting all three parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('smelt') and target ('items in a furnace'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from obvious siblings like 'cookItem' or 'retrieveItemsFromNearbyFurnace' by specifying the smelting action, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all possible alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a furnace nearby), when not to use it, or what distinguishes it from similar tools like 'cookItem' or 'retrieveItemsFromNearbyFurnace' beyond the basic action.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'eat food from inventory to restore hunger,' which implies a mutation (consuming inventory items) and an effect (hunger restoration), but lacks details on permissions, side effects (e.g., item destruction, cooldowns), or response format. This is insufficient for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and purpose without any wasted words. It directly communicates what the tool does and why, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a mutation tool (eating food implies inventory changes and hunger effects) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., what happens if no food is available, how much hunger is restored), making it inadequate for safe and effective use by an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description adds no parameter information, which is acceptable here as there are no parameters to describe. Baseline is 4 for 0 parameters, as the description doesn't need to compensate for any gaps.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('eat food') and the resource ('from inventory'), with the purpose ('to restore hunger') explicitly defined. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'cookItem' or 'useItemOnBlockOrEntity' by focusing on consumption for hunger restoration, though it doesn't explicitly compare to alternatives like 'rest' for similar effects.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when hunger needs restoration, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'rest' might also restore hunger, 'cookItem' might prepare food first). There are no prerequisites mentioned, such as requiring food in inventory or specific conditions, leaving gaps in practical application.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('tilling soil') but doesn't reveal traits like whether it's destructive, requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., affecting nearby crops), or what the outcome entails (e.g., soil readiness for planting). This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's action without any fluff or redundancy. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a mutation action with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain behavioral aspects like effects, prerequisites, or return values, which are crucial for an agent to use it correctly in context with siblings like 'harvestMatureCrops'.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add param info, but that's acceptable here. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as it avoids unnecessary detail.
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?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('prepare') and resource ('land for farming'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'harvestMatureCrops' or 'mineResource' by focusing on soil preparation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential similar actions like 'tillSoil' if such existed, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as whether it's for initial land setup versus ongoing maintenance, or how it relates to siblings like 'harvestMatureCrops' or 'placeItemNearYou'. It lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or prerequisite context, leaving usage unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read operation ('Retrieve') but doesn't specify if this requires specific conditions, what happens if no items are available, or the format of the return. More context on behavior is needed for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words, clearly front-loading the core action. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with no parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'nearby' means, what types of items are retrieved, or the return format. For a tool in a game-like context with many siblings, more detail is warranted.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter information is needed. The description doesn't add param details, which is appropriate, earning a baseline score of 4 for this dimension.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('Retrieve') and target resource ('smelted items from a nearby furnace'), making the purpose understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'openNearbyChest' or 'pickupItem', but the specificity of 'smelted items' and 'furnace' provides reasonable distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'openNearbyChest' or 'pickupItem', nor does it mention prerequisites such as needing a furnace nearby or smelted items being ready. The description only states what it does, not when it's appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral disclosure. It mentions message types but doesn't cover critical aspects like permissions needed, rate limits, whether messages are public/private, or how the server processes commands. For a tool that interacts with a server, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
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?
The description is extremely concise—a single sentence that efficiently covers the core functionality. Every word earns its place by specifying the action, target, and message types without redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a server communication tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., authentication, response handling), error conditions, or what happens after sending. This is inadequate for safe and effective use in an interactive environment.
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%, so the schema fully documents both parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., no examples of command syntax or whisper format). This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance understanding.
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?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Send chat messages or commands to the server.' It specifies the verb ('send') and resource ('chat messages or commands'), and distinguishes between message types (regular messages, commands, whispers). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'readChat' beyond the obvious send/receive distinction.
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 description implies usage context by mentioning 'regular messages, commands (starting with /), or whispers,' which suggests when to use different message types. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives (e.g., no comparison to other communication tools) or any prerequisites for use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool provides a 'detailed text-based view' but doesn't specify what aspects are observed (e.g., objects, entities, terrain), whether it's passive or active, or any limitations like range or conditions. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic purpose.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('look around and observe') and specifies the output. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or waste, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of environmental observation in a game-like context with many sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what 'surroundings' include, how 'detailed' the view is, or any behavioral traits. With no annotations and no output schema, the agent has insufficient information to predict the tool's full behavior or output format.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add param info beyond the schema, but with no params, this is acceptable. Baseline is 4 as per rules for 0 parameters, since there's nothing to compensate for.
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?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('look around', 'observe') and resource ('environment'), and specifies the output ('detailed text-based view of surroundings'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on environmental observation rather than interaction or action. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with specific sibling tools like 'readChat' or 'openInventory' that might also provide information.
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 description implies usage for gathering environmental information, which suggests when to use it (to understand surroundings). However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when NOT to use it or mention alternatives among the many sibling tools. The context is clear but lacks exclusions or comparative advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action but lacks details on behavioral traits like speed, energy cost, failure conditions (e.g., if no land nearby), or interaction with other tools (e.g., 'swimToLand' vs. 'runAway' in water). This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and condition. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary details, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (simple movement action) but lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens upon execution (e.g., success/failure states, time taken, or effects on game state), which is crucial for an AI agent to use it effectively in a gaming context with many siblings.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add param info, but with no params, this is acceptable. Baseline is 4 as per rules for 0 parameters, since there's nothing to compensate for.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('swim to') and target ('nearest land') with a specific condition ('when in water'). It distinguishes this from obvious siblings like 'runAway' or 'goToKnownLocation' by specifying aquatic movement. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all possible movement-related siblings, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.
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 description implies usage context ('when in water'), which suggests this tool is for escaping water environments. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use alternatives (e.g., 'runAway' for land threats or 'goToKnownLocation' for specific destinations) or mention any exclusions, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the requirement for cheats/operator permissions (implying authorization needs) and the maximum size limit (256x256 blocks). However, it lacks details on other behaviors like rate limits, what happens if the image fails to convert, or whether the operation is destructive to existing blocks.
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?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose, requirements, and constraints without unnecessary details. Every sentence earns its place by adding critical information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a 7-parameter tool with no annotations or output schema, the description is fairly complete. It covers the core functionality, permissions, and size limits, but could improve by addressing potential errors, output format, or more detailed behavioral context to fully compensate for the lack of structured data.
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%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying that 'width' and 'height' relate to the pixel art size (with a max of 256), but does not provide additional semantic context for parameters like 'facing' or coordinates. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Build pixel art from an image') and resources ('in Minecraft'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'buildSomething' or 'placeItemNearYou' by specifying the unique conversion from image to colored blocks. It explicitly mentions the maximum size constraint of 256x256 blocks.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for usage by stating 'requires cheats/operator permissions,' which indicates when to use this tool (when the user has appropriate permissions). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings, such as 'buildSomething' for other construction tasks.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses important behavioral traits: permission requirements ('requires cheats/operator permissions') and the two execution modes. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, error handling, whether operations are reversible, or what happens when both buildScript and code are provided.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: permission requirements, two modes, and examples. It could be slightly more structured with bullet points for the modes, but it remains efficient with no wasted words.
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?
Given 2 parameters with 100% schema coverage but no annotations or output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers purpose, permissions, and modes with examples, but lacks information about return values, error cases, or how the tool behaves when both parameters are provided. For a tool with no output schema, more detail on expected outcomes would be helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds significant value by explaining the two modes with concrete examples: 'buildScript - array of command objects' with a fill example, and 'code - JavaScript string for dynamic building' with a loop example. This clarifies the high-level semantics beyond the schema's detailed parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Build structures using Minecraft commands' with specific verbs ('build') and resources ('structures'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'buildPixelArt' by emphasizing general structure building rather than pixel art creation, and from 'placeItemNearYou' by focusing on command-based building at coordinates.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use this tool: 'requires cheats/operator permissions' and supports two modes. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings (e.g., when to use buildPixelArt vs. this tool).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![minecraft-mcp-http MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/leo4life2/minecraft-mcp-http/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/leo4life2/minecraft-mcp-http)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![minecraft-mcp-http MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/leo4life2/minecraft-mcp-http/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/leo4life2/minecraft-mcp-http)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/leo4life2/minecraft-mcp-http'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server