Minecraft RCON MCP Server

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

The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it specifies that only SELECT queries are allowed (write operations blocked) and that results are returned as a formatted ASCII table. Annotations cover readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc., but the description enhances this by detailing query restrictions and output format, though it doesn't mention rate limits or error handling.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by behavioral details and parameter explanation in a structured format. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse for an AI agent.

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 complexity (read-only database query), rich annotations (e.g., readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete enough. It covers purpose, usage restrictions, and parameter semantics, aligning well with structured data to provide a holistic understanding.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining the 'sql' parameter as 'A SELECT SQL statement,' adding meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't provide syntax examples or constraints (e.g., SQLite-specific quirks), leaving some gaps in parameter understanding.

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 action ('Execute a read-only SELECT query') and resource ('against the plugin's SQLite database'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like check_plugin_status or run_command. It explicitly mentions the type of operation (SELECT) and the database system (SQLite), providing precise purpose.

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?

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('Execute a read-only SELECT query') and when not to use it ('Write operations are blocked'), with clear alternatives implied (e.g., use other tools for non-SELECT operations). It distinguishes this tool from siblings by focusing on database queries versus status checks or command execution.

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