Minecraft Ops MCP

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.3.0
Disambiguation4/5
The tools are well-organized into clear categories (file, instance, msmp, rcon, server) with distinct purposes within each category. However, there is some potential for confusion between similar operations like server.save_world and rcon.save_all, or between different save methods. Overall, the hierarchical naming helps agents distinguish between tools effectively.
Naming Consistency5/5
The tool names follow an extremely consistent pattern of category.verb_noun throughout (e.g., file.list, msmp.allowlist.get, server.start). All tools use snake_case with clear hierarchical organization, making the naming scheme predictable and easy to understand.
Tool Count2/5
With 71 tools, this server has far too many tools for effective agent use. While the domain (Minecraft server management) is complex, the tool count creates overwhelming complexity and redundancy (e.g., multiple ways to save worlds, multiple player listing methods). A more streamlined set would be more appropriate.
Completeness5/5
The tool surface provides comprehensive coverage of Minecraft server management operations. It includes complete CRUD for files, instances, player management (allowlist, bans, operators), server control (start/stop/restart), configuration management, and multiple communication protocols (MSMP, RCON, MCSManager). No obvious gaps exist for the stated purpose.
Average 3.8/5 across 71 of 71 tools scored. Lowest: 2.4/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this as a read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world operation, covering key behavioral traits. The description adds no additional context about what 'operators' entails, potential authentication requirements, rate limits, or response format. However, it doesn't contradict the annotations, so it meets the lower bar with annotations present.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While the description is brief ('Get operators through MSMP'), it's under-specified rather than concise. The single sentence fails to convey essential information about what the tool does, making it inefficient in terms of information density. True conciseness would balance brevity with clarity, which this lacks.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, read-only operation) and the presence of annotations and an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it doesn't explain what 'operators' are or provide any context about the data returned, leaving gaps that could confuse an agent about the tool's purpose and output.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter gaps, so it appropriately avoids discussing parameters. A baseline of 4 is justified since no parameter information is required.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get operators through MSMP' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'msmp.operators.get' without adding meaningful specificity. It doesn't explain what 'operators' are in this context (likely server administrators with elevated privileges) or what format the data is returned in, making it minimally informative beyond the name itself.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'msmp.operators.add', 'msmp.operators.remove', or 'msmp.operators.set' that handle different operations on operators, nor does it specify prerequisites or appropriate contexts for retrieving operator data.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide comprehensive safety information (readOnlyHint: true, destructiveHint: false, idempotentHint: true, openWorldHint: true), so the description doesn't need to repeat these. The description adds minimal context beyond annotations - it confirms this is a retrieval operation ('Get') but doesn't describe what format the allowlist data is returned in, whether there are rate limits, authentication requirements, or what 'MSMP' refers to specifically. No contradiction with annotations exists.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise - a single 5-word sentence. While arguably too brief for full clarity, every word earns its place: 'Get' specifies the action, 'allowlist' identifies the resource, and 'through MSMP' provides system context. There's no wasted verbiage or redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has comprehensive annotations (readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent, openWorld), an output schema exists (so return values are documented elsewhere), and zero parameters with full schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, it could better explain what an 'allowlist' is in this MSMP context and what data format to expect, which would help an agent understand when to invoke this tool versus alternatives.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the parameter situation (none needed). The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it correctly doesn't mention any. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools where the schema provides complete coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get the allowlist through MSMP' is tautological - it essentially restates the tool name 'msmp.allowlist.get' with slightly different wording. While it indicates a retrieval action ('Get') and the resource ('allowlist'), it doesn't specify what an allowlist is in this context or what data is actually retrieved. The description distinguishes from sibling tools like 'msmp.allowlist.add' or 'msmp.allowlist.set' only by the verb, not by clarifying scope or content.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the tool name suggests it retrieves allowlist data, there's no mention of when this is needed versus other allowlist operations (add, remove, clear, set) or other MSMP tools. The description doesn't indicate prerequisites, timing considerations, or relationship to other tools in the system.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations cover key behavioral traits: readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, indicating a safe, repeatable read operation. The description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'status' entails). However, it doesn't contradict the annotations, so it meets the lower bar with annotations present but adds minimal value.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and to the point, though it could be more informative. It earns a high score for brevity but loses a point for under-specification, as it could convey more meaning without sacrificing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, annotations covering safety, and an output schema), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks detail on what 'server status' includes (e.g., health metrics, configuration), which would help an agent interpret results. With annotations and output schema, it's complete enough for basic use but could be more informative.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter semantics, but that's unnecessary here. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as the schema fully handles the parameter aspect without requiring description compensation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get server status through MSMP' restates the tool name and title with minimal elaboration. It specifies the verb 'get' and resource 'server status', but lacks detail on what status information is retrieved (e.g., uptime, performance, player count) and doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'server.get_daemon_system' or 'server.get_instance'. This is a tautological restatement rather than a clear, specific purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, timing (e.g., for monitoring or diagnostics), or comparisons to sibling tools like 'msmp.discover' or 'server.get_instance'. The description offers only a basic function without context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond what annotations provide. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, which fully covers safety and idempotency. The description's mention of 'rpc.discover' hints at a discovery operation but doesn't elaborate on what gets discovered. No contradiction with annotations exists, and the description doesn't add meaningful behavioral details like rate limits, authentication needs, or response format.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at one sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core instruction and doesn't contain any unnecessary elaboration. For a zero-parameter tool with comprehensive annotations, this brevity is appropriate and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (zero parameters, discovery operation) and the presence of rich annotations plus an output schema, the description is minimally complete but leaves significant gaps. While annotations cover safety and the output schema will describe return values, the description fails to explain what 'discover' actually means in this context—what information is retrieved, why it's useful, or how it integrates with other MSMP tools. For a discovery tool in a protocol context, more contextual explanation would be helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline score is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters since none exist, and the schema already documents this completely. No additional parameter semantics are required or provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Call rpc.discover on the Minecraft Server Management Protocol endpoint' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'msmp.discover' in different words. It doesn't specify what the tool actually does (e.g., discover server capabilities, list available endpoints, or retrieve protocol information). While it mentions the protocol context, it lacks a clear verb+resource combination that distinguishes its purpose from sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't explain what problem it solves, when it should be invoked (e.g., initial setup, protocol discovery), or how it differs from other MSMP tools like 'msmp.call' or 'msmp.server.status'. There's complete absence of usage context or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations cover key behavioral traits (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the description's burden is lower. It adds some context by specifying the token is 'temporary' and for 'one instance directory', but doesn't elaborate on token lifespan, security implications, or error conditions. No contradiction with annotations exists.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the main action, though it could be slightly more structured by hinting at the output or usage context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, 1 required), 100% schema coverage, annotations covering safety and idempotency, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It could improve by linking to sibling tools or mentioning authentication needs, but it's adequate for the structured context provided.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear parameter descriptions in the schema (e.g., daemonId uses default if omitted). The description doesn't add any meaningful semantic details beyond what the schema already provides, such as explaining interactions between parameters or upload_dir constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create a temporary...upload token') and target resource ('MCSManager daemon upload token for one instance directory'), which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'file.upload_local' or 'file.upload_url', which likely handle different upload methods.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'file.upload_local' or 'file.upload_url', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. It simply states what the tool does without contextual usage information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations cover read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world hints, so the agent knows this is a safe, repeatable read operation. The description adds minimal context beyond this, stating it retrieves game rules but not detailing format, permissions, or rate limits. It doesn't contradict annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 0 parameters, rich annotations (read-only, idempotent, etc.), and an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context on what 'game rules' entail or how this differs from similar tools, leaving gaps in understanding its specific use case.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate, earning a baseline score of 4 for this dimension.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get game rules through MSMP' states the action (get) and resource (game rules) but is vague about scope and format. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'msmp.gamerules.update' or 'msmp.server_settings.get', leaving ambiguity about what specifically is retrieved.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'msmp.gamerules.update' and 'msmp.server_settings.get', the description lacks context on whether this retrieves all rules, specific rules, or differs from other get operations in the MSMP namespace.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover key behavioral traits: readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds minimal context by specifying the query types ('daytime/gametime/day'), but doesn't disclose additional behaviors like response format, error conditions, or RCON-specific requirements. No contradiction with annotations exists.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It avoids unnecessary words, though it could be slightly more structured by separating the query types for clarity. Every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the tool's function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (1 optional parameter), rich annotations (covering safety and idempotency), and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It specifies the query types, which is useful, but lacks context on why or when to use this tool, which is a minor gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'query' fully documented in the schema (including type, enum values, and default). The description only repeats the enum values without adding meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining what each query type returns or when to use one over another. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Query server time through RCON using time query daytime/gametime/day.' It specifies the verb ('query'), resource ('server time'), and mechanism ('through RCON'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like 'msmp.server.status' or 'rcon.command' that might also provide time-related information.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention why one would choose this over other time-related tools in the sibling list (e.g., 'msmp.server.status'), nor does it specify any prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases for querying server time through RCON.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide key behavioral hints (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true). The description adds minimal context beyond this - it clarifies that the file created is 'empty', which isn't obvious from the tool name alone. However, it doesn't address important behavioral aspects like what happens if the file already exists, whether parent directories are created automatically, or permission requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point. Every word contributes essential information - 'Create an empty file' specifies the action and outcome, 'in an MCSManager instance' provides the context. There's no wasted verbiage or redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that annotations cover safety aspects and there's an output schema (though not shown), the description is minimally adequate. However, for a file creation tool in a multi-instance system, it should ideally mention idempotency behavior (what happens on repeated calls), error conditions, or relationship to other file operations. The description meets basic requirements but leaves important contextual gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 100% schema description coverage, all parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description doesn't add any additional semantic context about parameters - it doesn't explain the relationship between daemonId and uuid, provide examples of valid target paths, or clarify when defaults apply. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create an empty file') and resource ('in an MCSManager instance'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'file.write' or 'file.write_new' which might also create files, leaving some ambiguity about when this specific tool should be preferred.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'file.write' or 'file.write_new'. There's no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases (e.g., creating placeholder files, testing permissions). The agent must infer usage from the tool name and context alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond this, as it doesn't describe pagination behavior, error conditions, or authentication needs. No contradiction with annotations exists.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff or redundancy. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (5 parameters, pagination), rich annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It clearly states the core action and resource, though it lacks usage context and detailed behavioral insights that could enhance agent decision-making.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with all 5 parameters well-documented in the input schema (e.g., daemonId, uuid, target, page, page_size). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List files') and resource ('in an MCSManager instance directory'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'msmp.players.list' or 'server.list_instances', which also list things but different resources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a running instance), exclusions, or comparisons to other listing tools in the sibling set, leaving the agent to infer usage context solely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, covering key behavioral traits. The description adds minimal context beyond this, stating it creates a folder but not detailing permissions, error conditions, or what happens if the folder already exists (given idempotentHint=false). No contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (folder creation in a managed system), annotations cover safety and idempotency, and an output schema exists (though not provided here), the description is reasonably complete. It could benefit from more behavioral context, but the structured data compensates well.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear documentation for all three parameters (daemonId, uuid, target). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as path format examples or default behavior nuances. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create a folder') and the target ('in an MCSManager instance'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its siblings like 'file.touch' or 'file.write_new' which might also create filesystem elements, missing explicit differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'file.touch' (which might create files) or 'file.write_new'. There's no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or specific contexts for folder creation versus other file operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds minimal context beyond this (it specifies 'text file' reading), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like error conditions, file size limits, or encoding considerations that aren't covered by annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to understand at a glance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (a simple read operation), rich annotations covering safety and idempotency, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. However, it could benefit from more usage guidance given the many sibling file tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 100% schema description coverage, all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't clarify path formats or daemon/instance selection logic). The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Read') and resource ('a text file from an MCSManager instance'), providing specific verb+resource. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'file.download_local' or 'file.list', which also involve file operations but with different purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling file tools (e.g., file.download_local, file.list, file.write), there's no indication of when reading a file is appropriate versus other file operations or how this tool relates to them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations cover key behavioral traits (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the description doesn't need to repeat these. It adds value by specifying the exact RCON commands ('save-all' or 'save-all flush'), which clarifies the execution method beyond what annotations provide.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise—a single sentence that directly states the tool's function and parameter options without any fluff. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently communicates the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, clear annotations, and an output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It specifies the RCON command syntax, which is crucial for usage. However, it lacks context on when to prefer this over other save tools, which slightly limits completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'flush' well-documented in the schema. The description mentions 'save-all flush' as an option, which aligns with the schema but doesn't add significant semantic detail beyond it. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Save the world') and mechanism ('through RCON using save-all or save-all flush'), making the purpose understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'server.save_world' or 'msmp.server.save', but the RCON-specific context provides some implicit distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'server.save_world' or 'msmp.server.save' is provided. The description mentions the specific RCON command syntax but doesn't explain the context or prerequisites for using RCON versus other save methods.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide comprehensive behavioral hints (readOnlyHint: true, destructiveHint: false, idempotentHint: true, openWorldHint: true). The description adds no additional behavioral context about what 'details' include, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error conditions. However, it doesn't contradict the annotations, so it meets the lower bar set by having annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently communicates the essential information without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the comprehensive annotations (covering safety and idempotency), 100% schema coverage, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete for a read-only retrieval tool. The main gap is lack of differentiation from sibling tools, but otherwise provides adequate context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema fully documents both parameters (daemonId and uuid) including their optional nature and default values. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('MCSManager instance details'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'server.list_instances' or 'msmp.server.status', which might provide related information about instances.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools that interact with instances (e.g., 'server.list_instances', 'msmp.server.status', 'instance.update_config'), the agent receives no help in selecting this specific tool for retrieving instance details.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide comprehensive behavioral information (readOnlyHint: true, destructiveHint: false, idempotentHint: true, openWorldHint: true). The description adds minimal value by specifying 'output logs' but doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like log format, real-time vs historical access, or any rate limits. No contradiction with annotations exists.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the comprehensive annotations (covering safety and idempotency), 100% schema coverage, and the existence of an output schema, the description is reasonably complete for a read-only log retrieval tool. However, it could better address the tool's role within the broader sibling tool ecosystem.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 100% schema description coverage, all parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline but doesn't enhance understanding of parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Read') and resource ('MCSManager instance output logs'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'server.get_instance' or 'server.get_daemon_system' that also retrieve information about server components, so it doesn't reach the highest clarity level.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools available (like 'server.list_instances' or 'msmp.server.status'), there's no indication of when log retrieval is appropriate versus other monitoring or diagnostic tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide comprehensive behavioral hints (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true), so the description doesn't need to repeat safety information. The description adds minimal value beyond annotations by specifying the resource scope ('MCSManager daemon'), but doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication requirements, or pagination behavior details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward list operation and gets directly to the point with no unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that annotations provide comprehensive safety hints, the input schema has 100% description coverage, and an output schema exists, the description is reasonably complete for its purpose. However, it could benefit from mentioning the paginated nature of results or typical use cases to help the agent understand when this tool is most appropriate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 100% schema description coverage, all parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description doesn't add any meaningful semantic context beyond what's in the schema descriptions - it doesn't explain relationships between parameters, provide usage examples, or clarify edge cases. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the work.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List instances') and the target resource ('on an MCSManager daemon'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from its sibling 'server.list_daemons' or other list operations, which would be needed for a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of when this tool is appropriate versus other instance-related tools (like 'server.get_instance' or 'instance.create'), nor any context about prerequisites or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, and open-world hints, but the description adds value by specifying backend options. However, it doesn't detail behavioral traits like performance impact, error handling, or backend-specific nuances, relying on annotations for core safety.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose and backend options without unnecessary details. It is front-loaded and wastes no words, making it highly concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity, rich annotations, and an output schema (implied by context), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the core action and backends, though it could benefit from more usage context or behavioral details to fully compensate for the lack of explicit output explanation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond mentioning backend types, which aligns with the 'backend' enum but doesn't enhance understanding of other parameters like 'daemonId' or 'flush'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Save') and resource ('Minecraft world'), specifying the supported backends (MSMP, RCON, or MCSManager). It distinguishes from siblings like 'msmp.server.save' or 'rcon.save_all' by indicating it can use multiple backends, though not explicitly contrasting them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'msmp.server.save' or 'rcon.save_all' is provided. The description mentions backend options but lacks context on selection criteria or prerequisites, leaving usage unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds that this is a 'high-risk operation' requiring confirmation or dry-run, which is valuable context beyond annotations. However, it doesn't disclose what the update task does (e.g., software updates, configuration changes), potential side effects, or execution behavior like timeouts.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with two sentences that directly address the tool's purpose and critical usage requirement. Every word serves a purpose with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration. It's front-loaded with the main action and immediately follows with the key constraint.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that there's an output schema (not shown but indicated in context signals), the description doesn't need to explain return values. The description covers the essential action and safety requirement, but for a tool that runs an update task (potentially complex with side effects), it could benefit from more context about what the update entails. The annotations provide good structural coverage, making this reasonably complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with all parameters well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the full burden of parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the action ('Run the configured MCSManager update task') which is clear but vague about what the update task actually does. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'instance.update_config' or 'instance.update_config_patch' which also involve updates. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity about what kind of update this performs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance on parameter requirements ('Requires confirm=true or dry_run=true'), which tells the agent when this tool can be invoked. However, it doesn't explain when to choose this tool over other update-related tools like 'instance.update_config' or what context triggers running an update task versus other operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds minimal value by confirming it's a 'get' operation, but doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or what specific data the ban list includes beyond what annotations imply.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the essential information ('Get the player ban list'), making it efficient and easy to parse, with no wasted content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, annotations covering safety, and an output schema likely defining the ban list structure), the description is reasonably complete. It could be improved by clarifying the scope (e.g., all bans vs. active ones) or linking to sibling tools, but it adequately conveys the core functionality in context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the input schema fully documents that no inputs are required. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, so it appropriately avoids redundancy. A baseline of 4 is justified since the schema handles all parameter semantics effectively.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('player ban list through MSMP'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like msmp.bans.set or msmp.ip_bans.get, which would require more specificity about what distinguishes this particular ban list retrieval.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like msmp.bans.set (for modifying bans) or msmp.ip_bans.get (for IP-specific bans), nor does it specify prerequisites or contextual constraints for retrieving the ban list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide comprehensive behavioral hints (readOnlyHint: true, destructiveHint: false, idempotentHint: true, openWorldHint: true), so the agent knows this is a safe, repeatable read operation. The description adds minimal value beyond confirming it's a 'get' operation, but doesn't provide additional context about what the IP ban list contains or how it's structured.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that communicates the essential purpose without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately understandable to an agent scanning tool descriptions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, comprehensive annotations, and existence of an output schema), the description is reasonably complete. The output schema will handle return value documentation, and annotations cover behavioral aspects. The main gap is lack of differentiation from sibling tools, but for a straightforward read operation, this is acceptable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the schema fully documents the empty input requirement. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose rather than unnecessary parameter explanations.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('IP ban list through MSMP'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from its sibling 'msmp.bans.get' which likely retrieves a different type of ban list, leaving some ambiguity about scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple ban-related tools in the sibling list (msmp.bans.get, msmp.ip_bans.add, msmp.ip_bans.clear, etc.), there's no indication of when this specific IP ban retrieval tool is appropriate versus other ban management operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide comprehensive behavioral hints (readOnlyHint: true, destructiveHint: false, idempotentHint: true, openWorldHint: true), so the description doesn't need to repeat safety information. The description adds minimal context by specifying 'connected players' rather than all players, but doesn't elaborate on format, pagination, or real-time status aspects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that states exactly what the tool does without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and doesn't include unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has comprehensive annotations, an output schema exists (so return values are documented elsewhere), and no parameters, the description is reasonably complete. However, it could benefit from clarifying the relationship to sibling player-related tools for better contextual understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline would be 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, and the schema already fully documents the empty input structure.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('connected players through MSMP'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'rcon.list_players' or 'msmp.server.status' which might also provide player information, so it doesn't reach the highest score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'rcon.list_players' and 'msmp.server.status' that might overlap in functionality, there's no indication of when this specific MSMP-based player listing is preferred or required.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate this is a non-readOnly, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world operation. The description adds that it's a 'high-risk operation' requiring confirmation or dry-run, which provides important behavioral context beyond annotations. However, it doesn't explain what 'high-risk' entails (e.g., potential downtime, data loss) or other behavioral traits like rate limits or authentication needs.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just two sentences with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately follows with critical usage requirements. Every word serves a clear purpose in helping the agent understand and use the tool correctly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (state-saving operation with high-risk warnings), the description covers the essential purpose and safety requirements. With annotations providing safety context and an output schema presumably documenting return values, the description is reasonably complete. However, it could better explain what 'server state' encompasses and how this differs from other save operations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already fully documents all three parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema does all the parameter documentation work.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool 'Save server state through MSMP' which provides a clear verb ('Save') and resource ('server state'), but it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'server.save_world' or 'rcon.save_all'. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity about what distinguishes this MSMP-based save from other save operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit usage guidance: 'Requires confirm=true or dry_run=true.' This clearly indicates when the tool can be invoked (with those parameter values) but doesn't specify when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'server.save_world' or 'rcon.save_all'. The guidance is helpful but incomplete regarding sibling differentiation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds value by specifying that it discovers settings 'from rpc.discover,' clarifying the data source, but doesn't detail rate limits, authentication needs, or output format. No contradiction with annotations exists.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 0 parameters, rich annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.), and an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It specifies the action and data source, though it could better explain the relationship with sibling tools or the nature of the discovered settings (e.g., format or use cases).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the input schema fully documents the lack of parameters. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, so it meets the baseline for a parameterless tool by not introducing confusion or redundancy.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool 'discovers readable and writable MSMP server settings from rpc.discover,' which provides a specific verb ('discover') and resource ('MSMP server settings'). However, it doesn't clearly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'msmp.server_settings.get' or 'msmp.discover,' leaving the exact scope and differentiation vague.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'msmp.server_settings.get' for retrieving specific settings or 'msmp.discover' for broader discovery. It lacks explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions, providing minimal usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover key behavioral traits (read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, open-world), so the description adds minimal value by specifying the RCON method and 'fixed list command'. It doesn't disclose additional context like rate limits, authentication needs, or output format, but doesn't contradict annotations either.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that states the purpose and method without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('List online players') and avoids redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, annotations covering safety, and an output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It specifies the RCON method, which adds useful context beyond structured fields. However, it could benefit from mentioning the output format or differentiating from siblings to be fully comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is high. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it appropriately doesn't mention any, making it sufficient for this context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List online players') and the method ('through RCON using the fixed list command'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'msmp.players.list', which appears to serve a similar purpose, preventing a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'msmp.players.list' or 'rcon.command'. It mentions the method (RCON) but doesn't explain why one would choose this over other player-listing tools, leaving the agent without contextual usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds minimal context by specifying it retrieves a 'status summary', but doesn't elaborate on rate limits, authentication needs, or what the summary includes. No contradiction with annotations, but value added is limited.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff or redundancy. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly, which is ideal for a simple read operation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, read-only, with annotations and an output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It specifies what is retrieved ('system status summary'), though it could benefit from more detail on the summary's content or when to use it over siblings. The output schema likely covers return values, reducing the need for description elaboration.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the input schema fully documents the lack of parameters. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, so it meets the baseline for this case. No extra semantic value is provided, but none is required given the empty parameter set.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'MCSManager daemon system status summary', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'server.list_daemons' or 'msmp.server.status', which might provide related system information, so it misses full sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools like 'server.list_daemons' and 'msmp.server.status' that might overlap in functionality, there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess based on naming alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide comprehensive behavioral hints (readOnlyHint: true, destructiveHint: false, idempotentHint: true, openWorldHint: true), so the description adds minimal value. It doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, or authentication requirements beyond what annotations cover.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, comprehensive annotations, and an output schema), the description is adequately complete. It states what the tool does, though it could benefit from slight elaboration on daemon node specifics or usage context relative to siblings.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose without redundancy.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List') and resource ('MCSManager daemon nodes'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'server.list_instances' or 'msmp.players.list', which would require explicit comparison to achieve a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools available (like 'server.list_instances' for instances rather than daemons), the absence of any comparative context leaves the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds useful context about the confirm/dry_run requirement for high-risk operations, which isn't covered by annotations. However, it doesn't disclose other behavioral traits like what happens if targets conflict, whether copying preserves metadata, or error handling specifics.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just two sentences that directly state the purpose and a critical requirement. Every word earns its place, and it's front-loaded with the core action. There's no wasted text or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that annotations cover safety profiles (non-destructive, non-idempotent), schema coverage is 100%, and an output schema exists, the description is reasonably complete. It adds the important confirm/dry_run requirement. However, for a file operation tool with potential complexity (multiple targets, defaults), it could briefly mention what 'copy' entails (e.g., duplication vs. reference) to be fully comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 5 parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain targets format further or clarify daemonId/uuid defaults). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Copy files') and resource ('in an MCSManager instance'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like file.move or file.write_new, which would require mentioning that this creates duplicates rather than moving or overwriting files.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides some usage context by stating 'Requires confirm=true or dry_run=true,' which implies this is a high-risk operation needing confirmation. However, it doesn't explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives like file.move (for relocation) or file.write_new (for creating new files), nor does it mention prerequisites beyond the confirm/dry_run requirement.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this is a risky write operation. The description adds context about the confirm/dry_run safety requirements, which is useful beyond annotations. However, it doesn't disclose other behavioral traits like potential downtime, data loss specifics, or rate limits, leaving some gaps in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core action and critical safety requirement. Every word earns its place with zero waste, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (destructive operation with 7 parameters), annotations cover safety hints, and an output schema exists (so return values needn't be explained). The description adequately covers the main action and safety requirement, but could be more complete by mentioning potential impacts like instance downtime or data overwriting, which are relevant for a reinstall tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 7 parameters. The description mentions 'confirm=true or dry_run=true' but doesn't add meaning beyond what the schema already states about these parameters. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description provides no extra parameter insights.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Reinstall') and resource ('an MCSManager instance from a package URL'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'instance.update_config' or 'instance.run_update_task', which might also involve instance modifications, so it doesn't reach the highest score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides implied usage guidance by stating 'Requires confirm=true or dry_run=true', which indicates safety prerequisites but doesn't explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'instance.update_config' for non-reinstall changes or 'instance.create' for new instances. No explicit exclusions or named alternatives are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond this, mentioning it retrieves settings 'through MSMP' which suggests a specific protocol or interface. It doesn't disclose rate limits, authentication needs, or error behaviors, but with comprehensive annotations, the bar is lower.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get one server setting through MSMP') and provides clarifying examples. There is no wasted language or redundancy, making it appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter), comprehensive annotations, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It specifies the resource and provides examples, though it could benefit from more explicit usage guidelines or behavioral details. The annotations and schema cover most structured information needs.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'setting' fully documented in the schema as 'Setting name after minecraft:serversettings/, for example difficulty.' The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as format details or valid values. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get one server setting through MSMP' with specific examples ('difficulty or motd'). It distinguishes from the sibling 'msmp.server_settings.list' by specifying 'one server setting' versus listing multiple settings. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other get operations like 'msmp.gamerules.get' or 'msmp.allowlist.get' beyond the resource type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context by mentioning 'through MSMP' and providing examples, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose this over 'msmp.server_settings.list' for multiple settings or other get operations for different resource types. The examples help but don't constitute explicit guidelines.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide important behavioral hints (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true). The description adds minimal context by naming the three backends, but doesn't explain what 'broadcast' entails operationally (e.g., whether it's synchronous, how failures are handled, or what the broadcast scope is). No contradiction with annotations exists.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that immediately conveys the core functionality. Every word earns its place, with no wasted verbiage or unnecessary elaboration. It's perfectly front-loaded with the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of both comprehensive input schema (100% coverage) and output schema (implied by context signals), the description provides adequate context for a broadcast operation. It could be more complete by mentioning the broadcast scope (e.g., to all players) or success/failure behavior, but the structured data covers most needs.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already documents all 6 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying that 'backend' can be one of three specific technologies. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Broadcast a system chat message') and identifies the three supported backends (MSMP, RCON, MCSManager). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'server.send_command' or 'msmp.call' by focusing specifically on broadcasting chat messages rather than general commands or calls.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'server.send_command' or 'rcon.command', nor does it mention any prerequisites or constraints. It simply states what the tool does without indicating appropriate usage contexts or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate this is a non-readOnly, non-destructive, non-idempotent, openWorld operation. The description adds value by specifying the confirm/dry_run requirement for high-risk operations, which provides context beyond annotations. However, it doesn't disclose other behavioral traits like potential side effects, execution time, or error conditions that might be useful for an agent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (one sentence) and front-loaded with the essential information. Every word earns its place, with no wasted text or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (starting a server instance), the description is reasonably complete. It mentions the high-risk nature and confirmation requirements, and with annotations covering safety aspects and an output schema presumably handling return values, the main gaps are lack of sibling differentiation and limited behavioral context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already fully documents all 4 parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline but doesn't provide extra semantic context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Start') and target resource ('an MCSManager instance'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'server.restart' or 'server.kill' beyond the basic verb, missing explicit sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides some usage context by stating requirements ('Requires confirm=true or dry_run=true'), which implies this is a high-risk operation needing confirmation. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'server.restart' or 'server.kill', nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites beyond the confirm/dry_run parameters.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, indicating this is a destructive write operation. The description adds valuable context by specifying the confirm/dry_run safety mechanism, which helps the agent understand the operational constraints beyond what annotations provide. It doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or what exactly gets destroyed, but adds meaningful safety context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by critical safety information. Every word earns its place - no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration. Perfectly sized for this tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the destructive nature (destructiveHint=true), the description appropriately focuses on the safety mechanism (confirm/dry_run). With annotations covering the destructive/read-write profile and an output schema existing, the description doesn't need to explain return values. It could benefit from clarifying what 'clear' means operationally, but covers the most critical aspects for a high-risk tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters well-documented in the schema. The description mentions the confirm/dry_run requirement but doesn't add semantic meaning beyond what the schema already states about 'high-risk operations' and 'preview without executing'. 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.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Clear operators through MSMP' which indicates the action (clear) and resource (operators), but it's vague about what 'clear' means specifically - does it remove all operators, reset to defaults, or something else? It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like msmp.operators.remove or msmp.operators.set, which handle similar operator management.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context about parameter requirements ('Requires confirm=true or dry_run=true'), which implicitly guides usage for this high-risk operation. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like msmp.operators.remove (for specific operators) or msmp.operators.set (for setting a specific list).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide key behavioral hints (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true). The description adds context about the 'confirm' and 'dry_run' parameters being required for high-risk operations or previews, which is useful beyond annotations. However, it doesn't disclose other behavioral traits like rate limits, auth needs, or specific error conditions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise—just one sentence that directly states the purpose and key requirement. Every word earns its place with no fluff, and it's front-loaded with the essential information. This is a model of efficiency.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, 2 required), rich annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the core purpose and a critical usage requirement. However, it could benefit from mentioning sibling tools or more context about the MCSManager environment to enhance completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 all parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining parameter interactions or edge cases. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create a zip archive') and the target resource ('in an MCSManager instance'), which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'file.uncompress' or 'file.copy', though the purpose is distinct enough given the tool name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
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 it by stating 'Requires confirm=true or dry_run=true', which indicates prerequisites for execution. It doesn't mention alternatives or exclusions, but this requirement is a clear usage condition that helps the agent understand when invocation is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide important behavioral hints (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true). The description adds valuable context about the confirm/dry_run requirement for safety, which isn't covered by annotations. However, it doesn't describe other behavioral aspects like what happens on failure, whether moves are atomic, or permission requirements beyond what annotations indicate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is perfectly concise - just two sentences that communicate the essential information without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and follows with the critical safety requirement. Every sentence earns its place by providing necessary guidance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is a file operation tool with annotations covering key behavioral aspects (non-readonly, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world) and an output schema exists, the description provides adequate context. The confirm/dry_run safety requirement is appropriately highlighted. However, for a file movement tool that could have edge cases (permissions, path validity, cross-device moves), a bit more behavioral context would be helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema descriptions. It mentions the confirm/dry_run requirement generally but doesn't explain parameter interactions or semantics beyond the schema's coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('move or rename files') and resource ('in an MCSManager instance'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like file.copy (which copies without moving) or file.rename (which doesn't exist but would be similar), so it doesn't reach the highest score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context about when to use it ('Requires confirm=true or dry_run=true'), which helps the agent understand prerequisites for safe operation. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name alternatives (like file.copy for copying instead of moving), so it falls short of a perfect score.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent operation with open-world hints. The description adds valuable context about the high-risk nature and the need for confirm/dry_run parameters, which isn't covered by annotations. However, it doesn't detail potential side effects (e.g., overwriting existing files) or error conditions beyond the schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise—two sentences that directly state the purpose and critical usage requirement. Every word serves a purpose, with no redundancy or fluff, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, high-risk write operation) and the presence of annotations and an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the core action and safety requirements but could benefit from more detail on behavioral nuances (e.g., file overwriting) to fully compensate for the lack of explicit annotations on such aspects.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all parameters. The description mentions confirm and dry_run parameters but doesn't add meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., explaining why they're required for high-risk operations). This meets the baseline for high coverage without extra value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Write a text file') and the target system ('in an MCSManager instance'), which is specific and distinguishes it from other file operations like read, delete, or move. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'file.write_new' (a sibling tool), which might cause confusion about when to use each.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context on prerequisites ('Requires confirm=true or dry_run=true'), which is essential for safe usage. It implies this is for high-risk operations but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'file.write_new' or other file manipulation tools, missing full sibling differentiation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world operation. The description adds context about the safety requirement (confirm or dry_run), which is valuable beyond annotations. However, it doesn't detail other behavioral traits like potential side effects, rate limits, or authentication needs, so it's adequate but not comprehensive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and immediately follows with the critical usage requirement. There's no wasted text, and every word serves to inform the agent, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, nested objects, non-idempotent), the description covers the essential action and safety requirement. With annotations providing behavioral hints and an output schema present (so return values are documented elsewhere), it's mostly complete. However, it could benefit from more context on error conditions or dependencies, keeping it from a perfect score.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already documents all 8 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any additional meaning or clarification about parameters beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining interactions between source_daemonId and daemonId. Thus, it meets the baseline but doesn't enhance parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create a new MCSManager instance') and the source ('from an existing instance config'), which is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like 'instance.create'. However, it doesn't explicitly mention what distinguishes it from 'instance.reinstall' or other instance-related tools, keeping it from a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit usage conditions ('Requires confirm=true or dry_run=true'), which gives clear guidance on when to use this tool for safety. However, it doesn't mention when to use this versus alternatives like 'instance.create' or 'instance.reinstall', or any prerequisites beyond the parameters, preventing a score of 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds value by mentioning the high-risk nature ('Requires confirm=true or dry_run=true'), which implies safety precautions, but doesn't elaborate on rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'add' specifically entails beyond the schema. No contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just one sentence that front-loads the purpose and key requirement. Every word earns its place, and there's no unnecessary elaboration or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (mutation with safety parameters), annotations cover basic behavioral hints, and an output schema exists (so return values are documented elsewhere). The description adds crucial safety context but could benefit from more on error handling or prerequisites. It's mostly complete but has minor gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 6 parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining the relationship between 'confirm' and 'dry_run' or providing examples. 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.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Add player bans') and the target resource ('through MSMP'), which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'msmp.bans.set' or 'msmp.bans.remove', which would be needed for a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit usage guidance by stating 'Requires confirm=true or dry_run=true', which tells the agent when to use specific parameters. However, it doesn't mention when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'msmp.bans.set' or 'msmp.ip_bans.add', nor does it provide exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate this is a mutable (readOnlyHint=false), non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world operation. The description adds value by specifying the confirm/dry_run requirement for high-risk operations, which isn't covered by annotations. However, it doesn't detail other behavioral aspects like error handling, rate limits, or what 'high-risk' entails beyond the schema hints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and immediately states the key requirement. There's no wasted verbiage, and it effectively communicates essential information without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (mutation with risk controls), annotations cover safety and mutability, and an output schema exists (so return values are documented elsewhere). The description complements this by highlighting the confirm/dry_run requirement, which is critical for usage. It could be more complete by mentioning sibling tools or broader context, but it adequately addresses the core operational need.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents parameters like 'rule' (game rule key) and 'confirm' (required for high-risk operations). The description doesn't add extra semantic details beyond the schema, such as examples of rule keys or value formats, but it reinforces the confirm/dry_run requirement, aligning with the schema's descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Update') and resource ('a game rule through MSMP'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'msmp.gamerules.get' or 'msmp.server_settings.set', which would require more specific context about what distinguishes game rules from other settings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit usage conditions ('Requires confirm=true or dry_run=true'), which is helpful for guiding when to use this tool. It doesn't mention alternatives or exclusions, such as when to use 'msmp.gamerules.get' for reading instead, but the requirement guidance is clear and practical.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world operation. The description adds useful context about the high-risk nature and the confirm/dry_run requirements, but doesn't elaborate on what 'replace' entails (e.g., overwriting existing bans) or potential side effects beyond what annotations cover.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just two sentences that directly state the purpose and critical usage requirement. Every word serves a clear purpose with zero waste, making it front-loaded and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (mutation with high-risk operations), the description covers the essential safety requirement (confirm/dry_run) and purpose. With annotations providing behavioral hints and an output schema presumably covering return values, the description is reasonably complete though could benefit from clarifying what 'replace' means operationally.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 100% schema description coverage, the schema fully documents all 6 parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 without providing extra semantic value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Replace') and resource ('IP ban list through MSMP'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'msmp.ip_bans.add' or 'msmp.ip_bans.remove', which would require a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context about when to use it ('Requires confirm=true or dry_run=true'), which helps the agent understand prerequisites. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'msmp.ip_bans.add' or 'msmp.ip_bans.remove', which would be needed for a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate this is not read-only, not destructive, not idempotent, and open-world. The description adds valuable context about the confirm/dry_run safety mechanism, which isn't captured in annotations. However, it doesn't explain what 'kick' actually does behaviorally (e.g., temporary removal vs. ban, message visibility, reconnection rules).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is perfectly concise - one sentence that states the purpose and the critical usage requirement. Every word serves a purpose with zero redundancy, and the most important information (the confirm/dry_run requirement) is included.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is a potentially impactful player management tool with annotations and an output schema, the description covers the essential safety requirement. However, for a tool that affects players, additional context about what 'kick' means operationally and potential side effects would make it more complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all 4 parameters thoroughly. The description mentions confirm and dry_run requirements but doesn't add meaningful semantic context beyond what's in the parameter descriptions themselves, so it meets but doesn't exceed the baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('kick') and target ('one or more players through MSMP'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this from other player management tools like msmp.bans.add or msmp.operators.remove, which would require a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance about required parameters ('Requires confirm=true or dry_run=true'), which is crucial for safe usage. It doesn't mention when to use this versus alternatives like bans or when kicking is preferred over other actions, preventing a perfect score.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world operation. The description adds context about high-risk operations requiring confirmation or dry-run, which is valuable beyond annotations. However, it lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, or response behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose and key usage rule with zero waste. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (sending raw commands with safety parameters), annotations cover basic traits, and an output schema exists, the description is mostly complete. It could improve by mentioning potential side effects or error handling, but it adequately addresses core usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents parameters. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond implying 'confirm' and 'dry_run' are for safety, which is already hinted in schema descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Send a raw RCON command'), which is specific and distinct from sibling tools like 'server.send_command' or 'msmp.call'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from these alternatives, keeping it from a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
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 it ('Requires confirm=true or dry_run=true for high-risk operations'), which helps in decision-making. It doesn't specify when not to use it or name alternatives, preventing a score of 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false (indicating mutation), destructiveHint=false (non-destructive), idempotentHint=false (non-idempotent), and openWorldHint=true (flexible inputs). The description adds valuable context beyond this: it specifies that the tool creates a 'temporary' token, which implies time-limited access, and clarifies it's for 'one instance file', indicating a single-file scope. This enhances understanding without contradicting annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action ('Create a temporary MCSManager daemon download token') and specifies the target ('for one instance file'). There's no wasted verbiage, and every word contributes directly to understanding the tool's function, making it highly efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (creating tokens for file downloads), the description is reasonably complete. Annotations cover safety and idempotency, the schema fully documents inputs, and an output schema exists (though not provided here), so the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, it could benefit from more explicit usage guidelines to fully address when this tool is preferred over siblings.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear documentation for daemonId, uuid, and file_name parameters. The description doesn't add any additional semantic details beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain token expiration or format). Since the schema already fully describes parameters, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Create a temporary MCSManager daemon download token') and the resource ('for one instance file'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like file.download_local (which likely downloads directly) and file.upload_prepare (which creates upload tokens). The verb 'create' and the specific resource type make the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for preparing downloads via tokens rather than direct file access, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like file.download_local or file.read. There's no guidance on prerequisites (e.g., needing an instance to be running) or exclusions, leaving the context somewhat implied rather than clearly defined.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, covering key behavioral traits. The description adds valuable context by specifying the requirement for confirm=true or dry_run=true, which implies a high-risk operation needing user confirmation or a safe preview mode. This enhances transparency beyond annotations without contradicting them.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise and front-loaded, consisting of just two sentences that directly state the purpose and usage requirement. Every word earns its place, with no wasted information, making it efficient and easy to parse for an AI agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (destructive operation with two parameters), annotations cover safety and idempotency, and an output schema exists (though not provided in context), the description is reasonably complete. It addresses key usage constraints but could benefit from clarifying the scope of 'clear' (e.g., all entries) and differentiating from siblings for full completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters (confirm and dry_run). The description adds minimal semantics by referencing these parameters in the usage requirement, but doesn't provide additional meaning beyond what the schema already documents. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Clear') and target ('the allowlist through MSMP'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'msmp.allowlist.remove' or 'msmp.allowlist.set' beyond the 'clear' action, which might imply removing all entries versus selective removal.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit context for usage by stating 'Requires confirm=true or dry_run=true,' which guides when to use the tool based on parameter conditions. However, it doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'msmp.allowlist.remove' for partial clearing or 'msmp.allowlist.set' for replacement, leaving some ambiguity in sibling differentiation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world operation. The description adds value by specifying the high-risk nature requiring confirmation or dry-run, which isn't covered by annotations. However, it doesn't detail potential side effects like overwriting existing allowlist entries or error conditions, leaving some behavioral aspects unclear.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just two sentences, front-loading the core action and immediately following with critical usage requirements. Every word serves a purpose, with no redundant information or unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (high-risk operation with 3 parameters), rich annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the core action and safety requirements but could benefit from mentioning sibling tools for context or clarifying what 'replace' entails compared to other allowlist operations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for all parameters (players, confirm, dry_run). The description adds minimal semantics by implying 'players' is for the full allowlist and linking confirm/dry_run to risk management, but doesn't provide additional context beyond what the schema already documents, such as format examples for player entries.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Replace the allowlist') and resource ('through MSMP'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like msmp.allowlist.add, msmp.allowlist.remove, or msmp.allowlist.clear, which all modify the allowlist in different ways.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit usage guidance by stating 'Requires confirm=true or dry_run=true,' indicating when to use this tool (for high-risk operations requiring confirmation or preview) and implicitly when not to use it (when neither condition is met). This helps the agent understand the necessary parameters for safe invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate this is a non-readOnly, non-destructive, non-idempotent operation with openWorldHint. The description adds valuable context about the high-risk nature (implied by confirm requirement) and preview capability (dry_run), which goes beyond annotations. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or what specifically gets created/modified.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is perfectly concise with just two sentences that both earn their place. The first states the purpose, the second provides critical usage guidance. No wasted words or unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has annotations, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema (implied by 'Has output schema: true'), the description provides good contextual completeness. It covers the high-risk nature and dry-run option, which are important for a mutation tool. The main gap is lack of explicit mention of what the tool returns, but the output schema should handle that.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 100% schema description coverage, the schema fully documents all 6 parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema descriptions, so it meets the baseline of 3 for adequate coverage without adding extra value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Add IP bans') and target resource ('through MSMP'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'msmp.bans.add' or 'msmp.ip_bans.set' beyond the 'IP' specification in the tool name itself.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states when to use this tool with the requirement 'Requires confirm=true or dry_run=true,' providing clear operational guidance. This tells the agent the mandatory conditions for invocation, which is excellent usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate this is a non-readOnly, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world operation. The description adds context by implying high-risk ('Requires confirm=true or dry_run=true'), which isn't covered by annotations. However, it doesn't detail other behavioral aspects like rate limits, error handling, or specific permissions needed, so it only adds moderate value.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just one sentence that front-loads the purpose and key usage requirement. Every word earns its place, making it efficient and easy to parse without any waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has annotations, a detailed input schema, and an output schema (implied by context signals), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the core purpose and critical usage constraint. However, for a high-risk operation like adding operators, it could benefit from more context on outcomes or error cases, though the output schema may handle return values.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining 'players' formats or 'permission_level' ranges. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Add operators') and the system ('through MSMP'), which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'msmp.operators.set' or 'msmp.operators.clear' beyond the 'add' verb, which is why it doesn't reach a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states when to use this tool by specifying prerequisites: 'Requires confirm=true or dry_run=true.' This provides clear guidance on the required conditions for invocation, which is essential for high-risk operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds important behavioral context about the high-risk nature of the operation and the safety requirements (confirm or dry_run), which goes beyond what the annotations provide. However, it doesn't explain what 'Replace' means operationally - whether this completely overwrites existing operators, what happens to previous operators, or any other side effects. The annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true) provide some safety context but the description adds useful operational constraints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise - just two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second provides critical safety guidance. No wasted words, perfectly front-loaded with essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is a mutation tool (replacing operator lists) with comprehensive annotations, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema (implied by 'Has output schema: true'), the description provides adequate context. The safety requirement guidance is particularly valuable for this high-risk operation. However, it could better explain what 'Replace' means in practice relative to the sibling tools that modify the same resource.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it mentions the confirm and dry_run parameters but only repeats their safety function already documented in the schema descriptions. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Replace') and resource ('operator list through MSMP'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from its siblings like 'msmp.operators.add', 'msmp.operators.remove', or 'msmp.operators.clear', which all operate on the same operator list resource but with different actions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit usage guidance by stating 'Requires confirm=true or dry_run=true' for this high-risk operation. This clearly indicates when the tool can be invoked (with those safety parameters) and implies when not to use it (without those parameters).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds important behavioral context about the confirm/dry_run requirement for high-risk operations, which isn't covered by annotations. However, it doesn't describe other behavioral aspects like what constitutes 'high-risk operations' or execution consequences.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just one sentence that contains essential information about the tool's purpose and critical usage requirement. Every word earns its place with zero wasted content, making it front-loaded and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has an output schema (not shown but indicated as present), the description doesn't need to explain return values. It covers the essential action and critical safety requirement. However, for a command-sending tool with potential destructive operations, it could provide more context about what types of commands are appropriate or risky.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by mentioning confirm/dry_run requirements but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's in the parameter descriptions. 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.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('send a raw console command') and target ('through MCSManager'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'rcon.command' or 'msmp.call' that also send commands, missing full sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit usage conditions with 'Requires confirm=true or dry_run=true', clearly stating when the tool can be used. This gives specific guidance about mandatory parameter settings for operation, though it doesn't mention alternatives among sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate this is a non-readonly, non-destructive, non-idempotent operation with open-world hint. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying the safety requirement ('Requires confirm=true or dry_run=true'), which is crucial for understanding execution constraints that annotations don't capture.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is perfectly concise at two sentences, with the first stating the core purpose and the second providing critical safety guidance. Every word earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with the essential action before the constraints.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (file upload with safety constraints), rich annotations, complete parameter documentation, and existence of an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose and critical safety requirements well, though it could benefit from mentioning the relationship to sibling upload tools for full completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already documents all 8 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what's in the schema descriptions, so it meets the baseline expectation but doesn't provide extra value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Upload a local file') and target resource ('into an MCSManager instance directory'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like file.upload_url (URL-based upload) and file.upload_prepare (preparation step). The verb+resource combination is precise and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit context about when to use this tool ('Upload a local file') and includes important prerequisites ('Requires confirm=true or dry_run=true'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate when to use this versus alternatives like file.upload_url or file.upload_prepare, 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.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations. While annotations indicate this is a non-readonly, non-destructive operation, the description reveals it's a 'high-risk operation' requiring explicit confirmation or dry-run mode. This safety-critical information isn't captured in the structured annotations and helps the agent understand the tool's risk profile.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is perfectly concise - just two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second provides critical usage guidance. No wasted words, well-structured, and front-loaded with essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a creation tool with output schema available, the description provides adequate context. It covers the purpose, identifies it as high-risk, and specifies mandatory safety parameters. The main gap is lack of differentiation from sibling instance tools, but overall it's reasonably complete for the tool's complexity level.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already documents all 4 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. It references 'confirm' and 'dry_run' but doesn't explain them beyond what the schema already states. Baseline score of 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.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create') and resource ('MCSManager instance'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this from sibling tools like 'instance.clone_from_template' or 'instance.update_config', which also involve instance creation/modification scenarios.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit usage guidance by stating 'Requires confirm=true or dry_run=true.' This clearly indicates when the tool can be invoked (with either of these safety parameters) and implies when it cannot be used (without these safeguards). This is specific, actionable guidance for the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, indicating this is a non-idempotent write operation. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by specifying the confirm/dry-run requirement for safety, which helps the agent understand the operational constraints. It doesn't detail rate limits or auth needs, but the added safety context is significant.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (one sentence) and front-loaded with the core purpose and critical requirement. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (destructive operation with 5 parameters), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the safety requirement (confirm/dry-run), and with annotations providing behavioral hints and an output schema handling return values, the description focuses on what's most critical. It could mention sibling alternatives like 'instance.reinstall' for non-destructive changes, but it's adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema fully documents all 5 parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain 'uuids' or 'deleteFile' further), so it meets the baseline but doesn't provide extra semantic value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and resource ('MCSManager instances'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from other destructive operations like 'file.delete' or 'server.kill' among the many sibling tools, which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit usage guidance by stating 'Requires confirm=true or dry_run=true.' This tells the agent exactly when to use this tool (when confirmation or dry-run is needed for deletion) and implies when not to use it (without these safeguards), which is crucial for a destructive operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
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 operation with openWorldHint, the description reveals this is a high-risk operation requiring confirmation or dry-run mode. This disclosure about risk and safety mechanisms provides crucial context that annotations alone don't convey.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is perfectly concise with just two sentences that each serve distinct purposes: the first states the core functionality, the second provides critical usage requirements. There's zero wasted language, and the most important information (the requirement) is front-loaded in the second sentence, making it highly efficient and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this tool has annotations covering safety aspects, 100% schema description coverage, and an output schema (implied by context signals), the description provides adequate context. It addresses the high-risk nature of the operation and safety requirements, which is crucial for a mutation tool. The main gap is lack of information about what happens on success/failure or return values, but since an output schema exists, this isn't required in the description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description mentions confirm and dry_run parameters in the context of requirements, which adds some semantic value about their purpose and relationship. However, it doesn't provide additional meaning about the players parameter beyond what's in the schema, so it doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond the structured documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Add players') and resource ('to the allowlist through MSMP'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like msmp.allowlist.remove or msmp.allowlist.set by specifying addition rather than removal or replacement. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with msmp.allowlist.clear or msmp.allowlist.get, which would have earned a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit usage guidance by stating 'Requires confirm=true or dry_run=true', which tells the agent when and how to use this tool. This directly addresses the high-risk nature of the operation and offers alternatives (confirm for execution vs. dry_run for preview), making it clear when to use each parameter option.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent operation with open-world semantics. The description adds valuable context about the confirm/dry_run safety mechanism, which isn't covered by annotations. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects like player re-entry permissions or server notification behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (one sentence) and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed immediately by critical usage requirement. Every word serves a clear purpose with zero wasted text, making it easy for an AI agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a mutation tool with 3 parameters, 100% schema coverage, annotations covering key behavioral hints, and an output schema (implied by context signals), the description provides sufficient context. It covers the core purpose and critical safety requirement, though additional details about error conditions or return values could enhance completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all three parameters. The description mentions confirm and dry_run parameters but doesn't add semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., 'high-risk operations' and 'preview without executing' are already in schema descriptions). 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.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Remove player bans') and resource ('through MSMP'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like msmp.bans.add (which adds bans) and msmp.bans.get (which retrieves bans). The verb 'Remove' is precise and directly related to the tool's name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states when to use this tool by specifying required parameters ('Requires confirm=true or dry_run=true'), providing clear operational constraints. It implicitly distinguishes from alternatives like msmp.bans.clear (which removes all bans) by focusing on targeted removal of specific players.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it warns about the high-risk nature of replacement operations and specifies safety requirements (confirm/dry_run). Annotations already indicate it's not read-only, not destructive, not idempotent, and open-world, but the description appropriately emphasizes the risk and safety mechanisms without contradicting annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (one sentence) and front-loaded with the core purpose and critical safety requirement. Every word earns its place, with no redundant information or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (high-risk replacement operation with 6 parameters), annotations covering safety hints, and an output schema existing, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose and safety prerequisites well, but could benefit from mentioning the relationship to sibling tools (e.g., when to use set vs. add/clear).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already documents all 6 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3. It doesn't compensate for gaps because there are none.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Replace') and target resource ('player ban list through MSMP'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like msmp.bans.add (add individual bans), msmp.bans.clear (remove all bans), and msmp.bans.get (retrieve bans). It precisely defines the tool's scope as a full replacement operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit usage guidance by stating 'Requires confirm=true or dry_run=true' for safety, which helps the agent understand prerequisites. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate when to use this vs. alternatives like msmp.bans.add for incremental updates or msmp.bans.clear for removal, leaving some context gaps.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, which already signal a high-risk write operation. The description adds valuable context by emphasizing the high-risk nature ('Requires confirm=true or dry_run=true'), which reinforces the destructive behavior and provides a safety mechanism. It doesn't contradict annotations and offers practical guidance beyond them.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just two sentences that are front-loaded with the core action and critical usage requirement. Every word serves a purpose, with no wasted information, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (destructive operation with safety parameters), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose, usage prerequisites, and risk context. With annotations providing safety hints and an output schema likely detailing the result, the description doesn't need to explain return values, but it could briefly note the scope (e.g., 'all IP bans') for fuller context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear explanations for 'confirm' ('Required true for high-risk operations') and 'dry_run' ('Return a preview without executing'). The description mentions these parameters but doesn't add significant meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Clear') and the target ('IP ban list through MSMP'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its sibling 'msmp.bans.clear' (which likely clears general bans rather than IP-specific bans), missing full sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit usage guidance by stating 'Requires confirm=true or dry_run=true', which tells the agent when to use this tool (with those parameters) and implies when not to use it (without them). This is a clear prerequisite that helps avoid misuse.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate this is a non-readOnly, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world operation. The description adds valuable context by specifying the high-risk nature (implied by 'confirm=true for high-risk operations' in schema) and the dry-run option, which helps the agent understand safety considerations beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (one sentence) and front-loaded with the essential information. Every word serves a purpose, with no wasted text or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (mutation operation with safety parameters), annotations provide good coverage, and an output schema exists. The description focuses on the critical invocation requirement (confirm/dry_run) which is appropriate, though it could mention the relationship to sibling operator tools for full completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 100% schema description coverage, the schema fully documents all three parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 without providing extra semantic value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Remove operators') and resource ('through MSMP'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'msmp.operators.clear' or 'msmp.operators.set', which would require a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states when to use the tool by specifying the required conditions: 'Requires confirm=true or dry_run=true.' This provides clear guidance on the prerequisites for invocation, though it doesn't mention alternatives or when-not scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds valuable context by specifying the safety requirements (confirm=true or dry_run=true) for high-risk operations. This enhances transparency beyond the annotations, though it could mention potential side effects like permanent deletion 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise and front-loaded, consisting of just two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and critical usage requirement. Every word serves a clear purpose with no wasted information, making it highly efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (destructive operation with safety parameters), rich annotations (destructiveHint, etc.), and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete enough. It covers the core action and safety prerequisites, leaving detailed parameter and output info to structured fields.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds minimal value by hinting at the confirm and dry_run parameters' roles but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what the schema already explains, meeting the baseline for high coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Delete files or folders') and resource ('from an MCSManager instance'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like file.move or file.copy that handle different file operations. It's precise about what the tool does without being tautological.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for usage by specifying the required parameters (confirm=true or dry_run=true) for execution, which helps guide when to use it. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name alternatives (e.g., using file.move instead for relocation), keeping it from a perfect score.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond this: it explains that read_only=true skips confirmation, confirm=true is required for high-risk operations, and implies a confirmation mechanism exists. This clarifies safety protocols not covered by annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second provides critical usage guidelines. Every word earns its place, and it's front-loaded with essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (generic RPC caller with safety parameters), the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage rules, and safety mechanisms. With annotations covering operational hints and an output schema presumably detailing return values, no additional explanation is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 5 parameters. The description adds minimal semantic context: it mentions read_only and confirm parameters but doesn't explain method or params beyond what the schema says. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Call an arbitrary MSMP JSON-RPC method.' This is specific (verb+resource) and distinguishes it from all sibling tools, which are specific operations rather than a generic RPC caller. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other MSMP tools (like msmp.server.status) that might also call methods.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit usage guidelines: 'Set read_only=true for safe reads; otherwise confirm=true is required.' This tells the agent when to use which parameters for different scenarios (safe reads vs. high-risk operations), offering clear conditional guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies that extraction requires confirmation or dry-run mode, which aligns with the destructiveHint=true annotation (indicating potential data loss/overwrite). It doesn't contradict annotations—readOnlyHint=false correctly indicates a write operation, and the description confirms this by describing an extraction action. However, it could mention more about error conditions or specific limitations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise—just two sentences that front-load the core purpose and immediately follow with critical usage requirements. Every word earns its place: the first sentence defines the action and context, the second provides essential safety guidance. There's no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (destructive operation with 7 parameters), the description is reasonably complete: it states the purpose, context, and safety requirements. With annotations covering destructive behavior and an output schema presumably detailing results, the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, it could briefly mention what 'extract' entails (e.g., overwriting files, creating directories) for fuller context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already fully documents all 7 parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain 'source' or 'target' further). This meets the baseline of 3 since the schema carries the full parameter documentation burden.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Extract a zip archive') and the target resource ('in an MCSManager instance'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like file.compress (which does the opposite) and file.list (which only lists files). It goes beyond the tool name by specifying the archive format (zip) and context (MCSManager).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states when to use this tool: it requires either 'confirm=true' or 'dry_run=true' for execution, providing clear prerequisites. While it doesn't name alternatives, the requirement conditions serve as strong usage guidance, preventing misuse by mandating explicit confirmation or dry-run mode for safety.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds valuable context about the confirm/dry_run safety requirement for 'high-risk operations' (implied by the schema's confirm parameter description). However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or what specifically makes this 'high-risk' beyond the annotations. The description doesn't contradict annotations, so no contradiction flag.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the critical safety requirement. Every word earns its place with zero waste. It's appropriately sized for a tool with 9 parameters and important safety constraints.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (9 parameters, safety requirements), the description covers the essential purpose and safety constraints. With annotations covering mutability/destructiveness and an output schema presumably describing the result, the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, it could better explain why this is 'high-risk' (e.g., potential for large downloads, server impact).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 9 parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. It mentions the confirm/dry_run requirement but doesn't explain parameter interactions or semantics. With complete schema coverage, the baseline is 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action: 'Download a remote URL on the MCP server and upload it into an MCSManager instance.' It distinguishes from siblings like file.upload_local (which uploads local files) and file.download_prepare (which only prepares downloads). The verb+resource combination is precise and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Requires confirm=true or dry_run=true.' This provides clear prerequisites and safety guidance. It differentiates from file.upload_local (for local files) and file.download_prepare (which doesn't upload). The requirement for confirm/dry_run is a critical usage condition.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains the 'touch -> write' two-step process, the optional overwrite refusal, and the safety requirements (confirm/dry_run). Annotations provide basic hints (non-readOnly, non-destructive, non-idempotent, openWorld), but the description clarifies operational details like risk mitigation, which is helpful for agent decision-making.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place: the first sentence defines the action and key behavior, the second specifies critical safety requirements. No wasted words or redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, file system operations) and the presence of annotations and output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the core behavior, safety requirements, and distinguishes from siblings. However, it could mention the MCSManager context (daemon/instance parameters) or provide more detail about the 'touch -> write' sequence for full completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add specific parameter details beyond implying 'overwrite' behavior and the role of 'confirm'/'dry_run'. It provides some high-level context but doesn't elaborate on parameter interactions or semantics beyond what the schema already covers.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action: 'Create a text file with touch -> write', which combines two operations into one tool. It distinguishes from sibling 'file.write' by emphasizing the 'new' aspect and the optional refusal to overwrite existing files, making its purpose distinct and well-defined.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states when to use this tool: for creating new text files with optional overwrite refusal. It provides clear prerequisites: 'Requires confirm=true or dry_run=true' for high-risk operations, and implicitly contrasts with 'file.write' (which likely handles existing files differently) and 'file.touch' (which only creates empty files).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies the confirm/dry_run requirement for high-risk operations, which isn't covered by the existing annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false). While it doesn't detail rate limits or authentication needs, it provides crucial safety constraints that help the agent understand operational requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is perfectly concise at just one sentence that contains all essential information: the core purpose and the critical usage requirement. There's zero wasted text, and the most important constraint (confirm/dry_run requirement) is included upfront.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is a mutation tool (update operation) with an output schema available, the description provides sufficient context. It covers the core purpose and critical safety requirements. While it doesn't explain return values (handled by output schema) or all behavioral aspects, it addresses the most important operational constraint for a potentially high-risk update tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema descriptions (like daemonId defaults or config object details). This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Update') and resource ('MCSManager instance config'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like instance.update_config_patch (which likely does partial updates) and instance.create (which creates new instances). The verb+resource combination is precise and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly provides when-to-use guidance by stating 'Requires confirm=true or dry_run=true for high-risk operations.' This creates clear prerequisites and distinguishes it from tools that might not require such confirmation, helping the agent understand the safety protocol needed for this operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying the confirm/dry_run requirement for what it implies is a 'high-risk operation' (though this term appears in the schema). Annotations already indicate this is a non-readOnly, non-destructive operation with openWorldHint=true, but the description usefully clarifies the safety mechanism. No contradiction with annotations exists.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is perfectly concise with two sentences that each serve distinct purposes: stating the core operation and specifying critical usage requirements. There's zero wasted text, and the most important information (the confirm/dry_run requirement) is appropriately front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has annotations covering safety aspects (non-destructive, non-idempotent) and an output schema exists, the description provides sufficient context for a removal operation. It covers the essential 'what' and critical 'how' (safety requirements), though it doesn't detail what happens to players after removal or error conditions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already fully documents all three parameters. The description mentions the confirm/dry_run requirement but doesn't add semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides about players being removed. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Remove players from the allowlist') and identifies the target resource ('through MSMP'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like msmp.allowlist.add, msmp.allowlist.clear, and msmp.allowlist.set by focusing on removal operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states when to use this tool by specifying required parameters ('Requires confirm=true or dry_run=true'), which provides clear operational prerequisites. It distinguishes from alternatives like msmp.allowlist.clear (which removes all players) by focusing on selective removal.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds valuable context about the high-risk nature ('high-risk operations' implied by confirm requirement) and preview capability (dry_run). It doesn't contradict annotations and provides additional behavioral insight beyond the structured hints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (one sentence) and front-loaded with the core purpose followed by parameter requirements. Every word serves a clear purpose with zero redundancy, making it highly efficient for agent comprehension.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the destructive nature (annotations show destructiveHint=true), the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and safety mechanisms (confirm/dry_run). The existence of an output schema means return values don't need explanation. It could slightly improve by mentioning what 'clear' entails (e.g., removes all bans vs. resets to default).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters (confirm, dry_run) well-documented in the schema. The description mentions these parameters but doesn't add significant semantic value beyond what the schema already provides, maintaining the baseline score for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Clear') and target resource ('player ban list through MSMP'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like msmp.bans.get, msmp.bans.add, msmp.bans.remove, and msmp.bans.set. It precisely communicates the tool's function without ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states when to use this tool by specifying the required parameters ('Requires confirm=true or dry_run=true'), providing clear operational constraints. It implicitly distinguishes from alternatives like msmp.bans.remove (individual removal) or msmp.bans.set (replacement), though it doesn't name them directly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by specifying the safety requirements (confirm or dry_run parameters). While annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, the description reinforces this by emphasizing the high-risk nature and providing a safety mechanism, which is helpful additional behavioral information.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (one sentence) and front-loaded with the core action. Every word serves a purpose - stating the action, target, and critical usage requirements with zero wasted verbiage.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the destructive nature of the tool (annotations show destructiveHint=true), the description appropriately emphasizes safety requirements. With an output schema present, it doesn't need to explain return values. The description provides sufficient context for this high-risk operation while being appropriately brief.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already fully documents all four parameters. The description mentions confirm and dry_run parameters but doesn't add semantic meaning beyond what's in the schema descriptions. It meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Force-kill') and target resource ('an MCSManager instance'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like server.stop or server.restart. It uses precise language that leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states when to use this tool by specifying the required parameters ('Requires confirm=true or dry_run=true'), which serves as a safety mechanism. This provides clear guidance on the conditions under which the tool should be invoked versus avoided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies the safety requirement (confirm=true or dry_run=true for high-risk operations) and clarifies the operation's nature (downloading to local filesystem). Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, but the description complements these by explaining the risk mitigation needed. No contradiction with annotations exists.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is perfectly concise and front-loaded: two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and critical usage requirement, with zero 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.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, safety requirements), rich annotations, 100% schema coverage, and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete enough. It covers the core purpose, usage constraints, and behavioral context without needing to explain parameters or return values, which are handled elsewhere.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already documents all 8 parameters thoroughly. The description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 for adequate coverage without extra value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Download one MCSManager instance file') and target destination ('to the MCP server local filesystem'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like file.download_prepare, file.upload_local, or file.read. It uses precise verbs and specifies the resource being acted upon.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states when to use this tool ('Download one MCSManager instance file to the MCP server local filesystem') and provides critical usage constraints ('Requires confirm=true or dry_run=true'), which clearly distinguishes it from alternatives like file.download_prepare (which likely prepares rather than executes) or file.read (which reads without downloading).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds valuable context about the 'deep-merge' behavior and the safety requirement (confirm/dry_run), which goes beyond annotations. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or specific error conditions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with zero waste: first states the core operation, second provides critical usage requirement. Perfectly front-loaded with essential information, no redundant phrasing.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has annotations covering safety profile, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema (implied by context), the description is complete enough. It covers the core operation, distinguishes from siblings, and provides crucial safety guidance for a mutation tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description mentions 'patch' and the confirm/dry_run requirements, but doesn't add significant meaning beyond what the schema already provides about parameter purposes or interactions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Read the current MCSManager instance config, deep-merge a patch, and update it') with the exact resource ('MCSManager instance config'). It distinguishes from sibling 'instance.update_config' by specifying the patch/merge approach versus potentially full replacement.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states when to use with 'Requires confirm=true or dry_run=true' for high-risk operations, providing clear prerequisites. The sibling context shows 'instance.update_config' as an alternative, implying this tool is for partial updates via patching versus potentially full config replacement.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies that the operation is high-risk and requires confirmation or dry-run, which annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true) do not cover. This helps the agent understand safety protocols without contradicting annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by essential usage requirements. Every word earns its place, with no wasted information, making it efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a mutation operation with safety constraints), the description is complete: it states the purpose, usage rules, and behavioral context. With annotations covering safety hints and an output schema present (implied by context signals), no additional explanation of return values or low-level behavior is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already documents all parameters (ips, confirm, dry_run) thoroughly. The description adds minimal semantics by mentioning confirm and dry_run requirements but does not provide additional meaning beyond what the schema offers, meeting the baseline for high coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Remove IP bans') and resource ('through MSMP'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like msmp.ip_bans.add, msmp.ip_bans.get, msmp.ip_bans.set, and msmp.ip_bans.clear. It precisely identifies what the tool does without being vague or tautological.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states when to use this tool by specifying required conditions ('Requires confirm=true or dry_run=true'), providing clear guidance on parameter usage. It distinguishes it from alternatives like msmp.ip_bans.clear (which removes all bans) by focusing on specific IP removal.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies that the operation requires confirmation or dry-run for high-risk actions, which is not covered by annotations (which only indicate it's not read-only, destructive, or idempotent, and is open-world). This enhances safety awareness, though it doesn't detail rate limits or exact risk levels.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise and front-loaded, consisting of only two sentences that directly state the purpose and critical usage requirement. Every word serves a clear purpose, with no wasted information, making it efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a write operation with safety parameters), rich annotations (covering read/write, destructiveness, idempotency, and world state), and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete enough. It effectively communicates the core action and safety requirements without needing to explain return values or repeat structured data.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already fully documents all parameters (setting, value, confirm, dry_run). The description does not add additional semantic details about parameters beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 without compensating for gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Set one server setting through MSMP') with the resource ('server setting'), distinguishing it from siblings like msmp.server_settings.get (read) and msmp.server_settings.list (list). It precisely identifies the tool's function without being vague or tautological.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly provides usage guidance by stating 'Requires confirm=true or dry_run=true,' which indicates when to use this tool (for setting server settings) and includes prerequisites (confirmation or dry-run for safety). It differentiates from read-only alternatives like msmp.server_settings.get by emphasizing the write operation with safety measures.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds valuable context about the confirmation requirement and dry-run option. It doesn't contradict annotations and provides operational constraints beyond the structured hints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise with just two sentences that each earn their place. First sentence states the purpose, second provides critical usage requirement. No wasted words or redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a destructive operation with annotations covering safety profile, an output schema exists, and the description provides essential usage constraints, it's complete enough for the agent to understand when and how to use this tool appropriately.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description mentions the parameters but doesn't add significant semantic meaning beyond what's in the schema descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Stop server') and resource ('through MSMP'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'server.stop' or 'server.kill' which may use different mechanisms. It provides precise operational context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Requires confirm=true or dry_run=true.' This provides clear prerequisites and distinguishes it from tools that might not require confirmation or have dry-run options.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying the confirm/dry_run safety requirements. Annotations already indicate this is a non-readOnly, non-destructive, non-idempotent operation with openWorldHint, but the description provides practical safety constraints that aren't 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is perfectly concise - just two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence states the purpose, the second provides critical usage guidance. No wasted words, perfectly front-loaded with essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is a server management tool with full parameter documentation in the schema, annotations covering key behavioral aspects, and an output schema present, the description provides exactly what's needed: clear purpose and critical safety guidance without redundant information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already fully documents all 4 parameters. The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline expectation without exceeding it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Restart') and target resource ('an MCSManager instance'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like server.start, server.stop, and server.kill. It's precise about what the tool does without being tautological.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states when to use this tool by specifying prerequisites: 'Requires confirm=true or dry_run=true.' This provides clear guidance on required conditions for invocation, helping the agent understand the safety mechanisms in place.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying the confirm/dry_run requirement for high-risk operations. While annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, the description provides practical safety guidance that helps the agent understand operational constraints. No contradiction with annotations exists.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is perfectly concise with two sentences that each serve distinct purposes: stating the core function and specifying critical usage requirements. There is zero wasted language, and the most important information (the confirm/dry_run requirement) is appropriately front-loaded in the second sentence.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's destructive nature (annotations show destructiveHint=true), the description provides exactly what's needed: clear purpose, safety requirements, and usage conditions. With comprehensive annotations and an output schema available, the description focuses appropriately on operational guidance rather than repeating structured information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already fully documents all four parameters. The description mentions confirm and dry_run parameters but doesn't add meaningful semantic context beyond what's in the schema descriptions. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate but not enhanced parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Stop') and target resource ('an MCSManager instance'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like server.start, server.restart, and server.kill. It provides precise verb+resource pairing that leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states when to use this tool through the requirement 'Requires confirm=true or dry_run=true', providing clear usage conditions. It distinguishes from alternatives by specifying this is for stopping (not starting, restarting, or killing) instances, with explicit parameter requirements for high-risk operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![minecraft-ops-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/damocjwj/minecraft-ops-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/damocjwj/minecraft-ops-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![minecraft-ops-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/damocjwj/minecraft-ops-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/damocjwj/minecraft-ops-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/damocjwj/minecraft-ops-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server