Send a chat message in Minecraft to communicate with players or execute commands. Provide the message text for delivery in the game via the MCP server.
Send a chat message in-game
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| message | Yes | Message to send in chat |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core behavior ('Send a chat message') which is transparent, but it does not mention whether the message is broadcast to all players, potential rate limits, or required permissions. This is minimal but not contradictory.
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 sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately brief and front-loaded with the action verb, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is nearly complete. It would benefit from specifying that the message is public chat, but the core action and parameter are adequately covered for an agent to use it correctly.
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 schema description coverage is 100%: the 'message' parameter is fully documented as 'Message to send in chat'. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 ('Send a chat message') and the resource ('in-game'). It distinguishes from read-chat and player-whisper by virtue of the verb and resource, though it does not explicitly specify public versus private messaging.
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 such as player-whisper (private message) or read-chat (reading messages). The description lacks any contextual cues about public vs. private chat or prerequisites like being in-game.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.