Minecraft RCON MCP Server

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond what annotations provide. While annotations indicate this is a non-readOnly, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world operation, the description explains that it waits for log output after command execution (with a default wait time) and specifically targets commands that output to logs rather than RCON responses. This provides practical implementation details that annotations don't cover.

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 perfectly structured and concise: a clear purpose statement, specific usage guidelines with example, and parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy. The information is front-loaded with the core functionality stated first.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, open-world operation), the description provides complete context. It explains the purpose, when to use it, behavioral details about log capture timing, and parameter semantics. With an output schema present, the description doesn't need to explain return values, making this appropriately complete.

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 fully compensates by explaining both parameters: 'command: The Minecraft command to execute' and 'wait_seconds: Seconds to wait for log output after execution (default 2).' This adds essential semantic meaning that the bare schema lacks, though it doesn't provide format details or constraints for the command parameter.

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 capture server log output') and distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'run_command' by specifying it's for commands whose feedback appears in server logs rather than RCON responses. It identifies the resource (RCON commands) and the unique output mechanism (log capture).

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 versus alternatives: 'Useful for commands whose feedback appears in the server log rather than the RCON response (e.g. plugin commands that print results via logger).' This clearly differentiates it from the sibling 'run_command' tool and gives a concrete example of appropriate use cases.

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