MCP Minecraft Remote

by nacal

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

TypeScript

Remote

depositItem

Put a specified amount of an item into an open container. Enter the item name and optional quantity.

Instructions

Put items into an open container

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "itemName": "<itemName>"
    },
    "name": "depositItem"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`itemName`	Yes	Name of the item to deposit
`amount`	No	Amount of items to deposit

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedAug 18, 2025

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description must convey all behavioral traits. It only says 'Put items into an open container' without disclosing side effects (e.g., does it close the container? consume items? require inventory space?). This is insufficient for a mutation operation.

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 very short and to the point, with no wasted words. However, it lacks structure such as usage notes or examples, but given its brevity, it earns a high score for conciseness.

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?

The description is too minimal given the absence of annotations and output schema. It does not explain important details like what constitutes an 'open container', whether the item must be in inventory, or what happens on success/failure. The agent would need to infer from sibling tools like openContainer.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, missing opportunities to clarify itemName validity or amount constraints. Baseline score of 3 applies.

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 action (deposit) and target (open container), using a specific verb+resource structure. It distinguishes from siblings like tossItem (discard) and withdrawItem (remove), making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 tossItem or withdrawItem. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., container must be open) or conditions for failure, leaving the agent without decision-making context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.