Minecraft Ops MCP

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.