Minecraft Ops MCP

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.