Place an inventory block at a target coordinate against a specified neighboring face, enabling precise block construction by an AI agent in Minecraft.
Place an inventory block at a coordinate against a neighboring face.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x | Yes | ||
| y | Yes | ||
| z | Yes | ||
| face | No | ||
| item | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a state change (placing a block) but doesn't mention inventory consumption, potential failure conditions, or requirements like proximity or facing. This is a significant gap for a tool that modifies the world.
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 no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and key details, making it easy to parse.
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 output schema, no annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description is too thin. It doesn't explain success/failure behavior, whether the block must be in inventory, or how to specify coordinates relative to the player. An agent would need additional information to use this tool correctly in a Minecraft context.
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 description hints that x, y, z are coordinates and face is a neighboring face, but it doesn't explain the item parameter or how coordinates are interpreted. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description should compensate more thoroughly; it adds some meaning but not enough to fully understand parameter usage.
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), the object (inventory block), and the location (coordinate) with orientation (against a neighboring face). It is specific and distinct from sibling tools like dig or collect, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.
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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.