Minecraft Ops MCP

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.