Minecraft Ops MCP

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-readonly, non-destructive, non-idempotent operation with open-world hint. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying the safety requirement ('Requires confirm=true or dry_run=true'), which is crucial for understanding execution constraints that annotations don't capture.

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 at two sentences, with the first stating the core purpose and the second providing critical safety guidance. Every word earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with the essential action before the constraints.

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 (file upload with safety constraints), rich annotations, complete parameter documentation, and existence of an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose and critical safety requirements well, though it could benefit from mentioning the relationship to sibling upload tools for full completeness.

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 doesn't add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what's in the schema descriptions, so it meets the baseline expectation but doesn't provide 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 ('Upload a local file') and target resource ('into an MCSManager instance directory'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like file.upload_url (URL-based upload) and file.upload_prepare (preparation step). The verb+resource combination is precise and 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 provides explicit context about when to use this tool ('Upload a local file') and includes important prerequisites ('Requires confirm=true or dry_run=true'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate when to use this versus alternatives like file.upload_url or file.upload_prepare, which would be needed for a perfect score.

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