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 commands should be provided 'without leading slash', which is a critical behavioral detail not covered by annotations (which indicate non-readOnly, openWorld, non-idempotent, non-destructive). This clarifies execution format, though it doesn't detail potential side effects like server state changes 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 in the first sentence, followed by concise examples that illustrate usage without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place by clarifying execution format and providing practical guidance, with no wasted words.

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 (executing commands on a server), the description is complete: it covers purpose, usage, parameter semantics, and behavioral details like command formatting. With an output schema present, it appropriately omits return value explanations, and annotations provide safety context, making this well-rounded for agent use.

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 for the single parameter 'command', the description fully compensates by providing clear semantics: it explains that the command is an RCON command for Minecraft, gives examples ('say Hello', 'gamemode creative Steve'), and specifies formatting ('without leading slash'), adding essential meaning beyond the bare 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 specific action ('Execute an RCON command') and resource ('on the Minecraft server'), with explicit differentiation from sibling tools like 'run_command_with_log' by specifying 'without leading slash' and providing command examples that show direct execution versus logging variants.

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?

It explicitly states when to use this tool ('Execute an RCON command') and provides clear alternatives through examples and context, distinguishing it from siblings like 'run_command_with_log' by emphasizing direct command execution without logging, and implicitly from query/read tools by focusing on action-oriented commands.

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