Minecraft RCON MCP Server

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds valuable context about what gets checked (RCON connectivity, server log errors, database file status) and the recommended timing (before tests/debugging), which goes beyond annotations. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste. First sentence defines purpose with specific checks, second provides usage guideline. Front-loaded with core functionality, appropriately sized for a no-parameter diagnostic tool.

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 0 parameters, rich annotations (readOnly, idempotent, etc.), and an output schema exists, the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, and the scope of checks, without needing to detail return values or safety (covered by annotations/output schema).

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?

There are 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (though empty). The description doesn't need to explain parameters, but it implicitly confirms no inputs are required by focusing on overall health check. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description maintains this by not introducing unnecessary parameter discussion.

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 specific verb ('check') and resource ('overall plugin health') with three concrete aspects: RCON connectivity, recent errors in server log, and database file status. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'read_server_log' or 'query_database' by covering multiple health indicators rather than focusing on a single component.

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?

Explicitly provides when-to-use guidance: 'Recommended to call before running tests or debugging.' This gives clear context for usage and distinguishes it from siblings like 'run_command' or 'read_test_log' which are for execution or post-debugging analysis rather than pre-check health assessment.

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