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 that extraction requires confirmation or dry-run mode, which aligns with the destructiveHint=true annotation (indicating potential data loss/overwrite). It doesn't contradict annotations—readOnlyHint=false correctly indicates a write operation, and the description confirms this by describing an extraction action. However, it could mention more about error conditions or specific limitations.

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—just two sentences that front-load the core purpose and immediately follow with critical usage requirements. Every word earns its place: the first sentence defines the action and context, the second provides essential safety guidance. There's no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 7 parameters), the description is reasonably complete: it states the purpose, context, and safety requirements. With annotations covering destructive behavior and an output schema presumably detailing results, the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, it could briefly mention what 'extract' entails (e.g., overwriting files, creating directories) for fuller context.

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 fully documents all 7 parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain 'source' or 'target' further). This meets the baseline of 3 since the schema carries the full parameter documentation burden.

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 ('Extract a zip archive') and the target resource ('in an MCSManager instance'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like file.compress (which does the opposite) and file.list (which only lists files). It goes beyond the tool name by specifying the archive format (zip) and context (MCSManager).

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: it requires either 'confirm=true' or 'dry_run=true' for execution, providing clear prerequisites. While it doesn't name alternatives, the requirement conditions serve as strong usage guidance, preventing misuse by mandating explicit confirmation or dry-run mode for safety.

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