Minecraft Ops MCP

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

Annotations indicate this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent operation with open-world hints. The description adds valuable context about the high-risk nature and the need for confirm/dry_run parameters, which isn't covered by annotations. However, it doesn't detail potential side effects (e.g., overwriting existing files) or error conditions beyond the schema.

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—two sentences that directly state the purpose and critical usage requirement. Every word serves a purpose, with no redundancy or fluff, making it easy to parse and understand 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 complexity (6 parameters, high-risk write operation) and the presence of annotations and an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the core action and safety requirements but could benefit from more detail on behavioral nuances (e.g., file overwriting) to fully compensate for the lack of explicit annotations on such aspects.

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 parameters. The description mentions confirm and dry_run parameters but doesn't add meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., explaining why they're required for high-risk operations). This meets the baseline for high coverage without 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 action ('Write a text file') and the target system ('in an MCSManager instance'), which is specific and distinguishes it from other file operations like read, delete, or move. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'file.write_new' (a sibling tool), which might cause confusion about when to use each.

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 clear context on prerequisites ('Requires confirm=true or dry_run=true'), which is essential for safe usage. It implies this is for high-risk operations but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'file.write_new' or other file manipulation tools, missing full sibling differentiation.

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