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, open-world operation. The description adds context about the safety requirement (confirm or dry_run), which is valuable beyond annotations. However, it doesn't detail other behavioral traits like potential side effects, rate limits, or authentication needs, so it's adequate but not comprehensive.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and immediately follows with the critical usage requirement. There's no wasted text, and every word serves to inform the agent, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 (8 parameters, nested objects, non-idempotent), the description covers the essential action and safety requirement. With annotations providing behavioral hints and an output schema present (so return values are documented elsewhere), it's mostly complete. However, it could benefit from more context on error conditions or dependencies, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 additional meaning or clarification about parameters beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining interactions between source_daemonId and daemonId. Thus, it meets the baseline but doesn't enhance parameter understanding.

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 new MCSManager instance') and the source ('from an existing instance config'), which is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like 'instance.create'. However, it doesn't explicitly mention what distinguishes it from 'instance.reinstall' or other instance-related tools, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 usage conditions ('Requires confirm=true or dry_run=true'), which gives clear guidance on when to use this tool for safety. However, it doesn't mention when to use this versus alternatives like 'instance.create' or 'instance.reinstall', or any prerequisites beyond the parameters, preventing a score of 5.

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