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 explains the 'touch -> write' two-step process, the optional overwrite refusal, and the safety requirements (confirm/dry_run). Annotations provide basic hints (non-readOnly, non-destructive, non-idempotent, openWorld), but the description clarifies operational details like risk mitigation, which is helpful for agent decision-making.

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) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place: the first sentence defines the action and key behavior, the second specifies critical safety requirements. No wasted words or redundant information.

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 (7 parameters, file system operations) and the presence of annotations and output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the core behavior, safety requirements, and distinguishes from siblings. However, it could mention the MCSManager context (daemon/instance parameters) or provide more detail about the 'touch -> write' sequence 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add specific parameter details beyond implying 'overwrite' behavior and the role of 'confirm'/'dry_run'. It provides some high-level context but doesn't elaborate on parameter interactions or semantics beyond what the schema already covers.

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: 'Create a text file with touch -> write', which combines two operations into one tool. It distinguishes from sibling 'file.write' by emphasizing the 'new' aspect and the optional refusal to overwrite existing files, making its purpose distinct and well-defined.

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: for creating new text files with optional overwrite refusal. It provides clear prerequisites: 'Requires confirm=true or dry_run=true' for high-risk operations, and implicitly contrasts with 'file.write' (which likely handles existing files differently) and 'file.touch' (which only creates empty files).

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