Minecraft MCP Server

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.