Minecraft Ops MCP

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

Annotations cover key behavioral traits (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the description's burden is lower. It adds some context by specifying the token is 'temporary' and for 'one instance directory', but doesn't elaborate on token lifespan, security implications, or error conditions. 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 a single, direct sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the main action, though it could be slightly more structured by hinting at the output or usage context.

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 (3 parameters, 1 required), 100% schema coverage, annotations covering safety and idempotency, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It could improve by linking to sibling tools or mentioning authentication needs, but it's adequate for the structured context provided.

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 parameter descriptions in the schema (e.g., daemonId uses default if omitted). The description doesn't add any meaningful semantic details beyond what the schema already provides, such as explaining interactions between parameters or upload_dir constraints.

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 temporary...upload token') and target resource ('MCSManager daemon upload token for one instance directory'), which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'file.upload_local' or 'file.upload_url', which likely handle different upload methods.

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.upload_local' or 'file.upload_url', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. It simply states what the tool does without contextual usage information.

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