Minecraft Plugin Documentation MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions scanning, extracting, checking, and recommending, but lacks details on permissions required, whether it modifies files, rate limits, output format, or error handling. For a tool with potential file system access and analysis operations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the main purpose and lists key actions without redundancy. It could be slightly more structured by separating core functions, but it avoids waste and is appropriately sized for the tool's scope.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description provides a basic overview but lacks completeness for a tool with file system interaction and analysis outputs. It covers the 'what' but not the 'how' or 'what next', such as result format or error cases, leaving gaps in contextual understanding despite the clear schema coverage.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying 'project_path' is for analysis and 'check_versions' relates to dependency updates, which the schema already covers. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 tool performs a 'comprehensive analysis' of a Minecraft plugin project, specifying actions like scanning subprojects, extracting dependencies, checking for updates, and providing recommendations. It distinguishes from siblings by covering multiple analysis aspects rather than focusing on specific tasks like version checking or documentation retrieval, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with each sibling.

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 implies usage for analyzing plugin projects with dependency and update concerns, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'check_latest_versions' or 'scan_project_dependencies'. It suggests a broad analysis context without detailing prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative scenarios.

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