Equip an inventory item to a specific body slot such as hand, head, or feet. Specify the item name and optional destination to change the player's worn or held equipment.
Equip an inventory item.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| item | Yes | ||
| destination | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and says nothing about side effects, such as whether the item is removed from inventory, what happens if destination is omitted, or whether existing equipped items are replaced.
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 short sentence with no filler, and it front-loads the core action. It is appropriately concise for a simple utility tool, even though other dimensions suffer from the brevity.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description leaves the agent without usage context, default destination behavior, or return/error expectations. The destination enum in the schema helps, but the overall description is barely above a bare minimum.
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 0%, so the description should compensate. The phrase 'inventory item' adds modest meaning to the item parameter, but the description does not explain the item format, the destination options, or any default behavior, leaving most parameter semantics to the raw schema.
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 uses a specific verb ('equip') and a clear resource ('an inventory item'), and the action is distinct from sibling tools like minecraft_inventory or minecraft_place. It does not explicitly mention destination slots, but the schema provides that detail.
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 guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives, or about prerequisites such as the item needing to be in the inventory. Usage context must be inferred entirely from the tool name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.