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. The description adds valuable context about the confirm/dry_run safety requirement for 'high-risk operations' (implied by the schema's confirm parameter description). However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or what specifically makes this 'high-risk' beyond the annotations. The description doesn't contradict annotations, so no contradiction flag.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the critical safety requirement. Every word earns its place with zero waste. It's appropriately sized for a tool with 9 parameters and important safety 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 (9 parameters, safety requirements), the description covers the essential purpose and safety constraints. With annotations covering mutability/destructiveness and an output schema presumably describing the result, the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, it could better explain why this is 'high-risk' (e.g., potential for large downloads, server impact).

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%, so the schema fully documents all 9 parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. It mentions the confirm/dry_run requirement but doesn't explain parameter interactions or semantics. With complete schema coverage, the baseline is 3.

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: 'Download a remote URL on the MCP server and upload it into an MCSManager instance.' It distinguishes from siblings like file.upload_local (which uploads local files) and file.download_prepare (which only prepares downloads). 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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Requires confirm=true or dry_run=true.' This provides clear prerequisites and safety guidance. It differentiates from file.upload_local (for local files) and file.download_prepare (which doesn't upload). The requirement for confirm/dry_run is a critical usage condition.

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