Minecraft Ops MCP

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.