mcp-minecraft

look-at

Make a Minecraft bot look at any specific coordinates (x, y, z) to direct its gaze towards a target position in the game world.

Instructions

Make the bot look at a specific position

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": {
      "x": "<x>",
      "y": "<y>",
      "z": "<z>"
    },
    "name": "look-at"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`x`	Yes	X coordinate
`y`	Yes	Y coordinate
`z`	Yes	Z coordinate

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?

There are no annotations, so the description must bear the full burden. It only says 'make the bot look at a specific position' without disclosing whether the bot's body rotates, whether the rotation is instant, whether any validation is performed, or any prerequisites. This is a minimal statement with no behavioral depth.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is one short sentence of eight words. It is front-loaded and contains no extraneous information, earning a perfect score for conciseness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with three numeric parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate, but it does not clarify the effect (e.g., head vs body rotation), how it differs from 'look-around', or any constraints. Given its simplicity, it reaches a middle score.

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?

The schema provides descriptions for all three parameters (X, Y, Z coordinates), so coverage is 100%. The description adds no extra detail about units, coordinate system, or whether the position is absolute or relative. Baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('look at') and the target ('a specific position'), which is distinct from moving or interacting. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'look-around' tool, so it is clear but not fully specified.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention conditions like aiming, looking before interacting, or that other tools handle movement. No exclusions or alternatives are referenced.

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