Minecraft Plugin Documentation MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes what the tool does but lacks details on behavioral traits such as whether it requires network access, how it handles errors, if there are rate limits, or what the output format looks like. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely interacts with external resources.

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 and concise, consisting of two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and usage modes without any wasted words. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information.

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 complexity of checking dependencies (which may involve external APIs or repositories) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not cover behavioral aspects like network requirements, error handling, or output structure, leaving gaps that could hinder an AI agent's ability to use the tool effectively.

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?

The description mentions the two modes (checking all or comparing against a project) which aligns with the parameters 'check_all' and 'project_path', but it does not add meaning beyond what the input schema provides. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the baseline score is 3, as the schema already documents all parameters adequately.

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 ('check for the latest versions') and resource ('Minecraft plugin dependencies'), and distinguishes between two modes: checking all known dependencies or comparing against a project's current versions. This specificity helps differentiate it from sibling tools like 'analyze_plugin_project' or 'scan_project_dependencies'.

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 the tool: either to check all known dependencies or to compare against a project's current versions. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among sibling tools, which would be needed for a perfect score.

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