Minecraft MCP Server

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.