Minecraft MCP Server

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.