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=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains the filtering logic (only lines with LOG_PREFIX), default prefix '[TEST]', incremental reading mechanism, and event filtering syntax, which are not captured in 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?

The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by key behavioral details, and ends with a structured 'Args' section. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-organized.

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 (filtered, incremental reading), annotations cover safety aspects, and an output schema exists (so return values need not be explained), the description is complete. It adequately explains purpose, usage, behavior, and parameters, leaving no significant gaps for the agent to operate 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries full burden. It effectively compensates by detailing both parameters: 'since_position' is explained as a byte offset for incremental reading with default 0, and 'event_filter' is described with examples (e.g., 'PASS', 'FAIL') and matching syntax, adding clear meaning beyond the basic schema.

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 verb 'Read' and resource 'plugin test/debug logs', specifying they are 'filtered by a configurable prefix'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'read_server_log' by focusing on test/debug logs with a specific prefix mechanism, not general server logs.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: for reading filtered test logs with incremental reading capability. It implies usage for monitoring test events but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings, such as 'read_server_log' for non-test logs.

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