Minecraft MCP Server

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.