Minecraft Ops MCP

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.