Minecraft Ops MCP

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, covering key behavioral traits. The description adds minimal context beyond this, stating it creates a folder but not detailing permissions, error conditions, or what happens if the folder already exists (given idempotentHint=false). No contradiction with 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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 (folder creation in a managed system), annotations cover safety and idempotency, and an output schema exists (though not provided here), the description is reasonably complete. It could benefit from more behavioral context, but the structured data compensates well.

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 all three parameters (daemonId, uuid, target). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as path format examples or default behavior nuances. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema 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 action ('Create a folder') and the target ('in an MCSManager instance'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its siblings like 'file.touch' or 'file.write_new' which might also create filesystem elements, missing explicit differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'file.touch' (which might create files) or 'file.write_new'. There's no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or specific contexts for folder creation versus other file operations.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.