Minecraft Ops MCP

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

Annotations already provide destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, indicating this is a non-idempotent write operation. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by specifying the confirm/dry-run requirement for safety, which helps the agent understand the operational constraints. It doesn't detail rate limits or auth needs, but the added safety context is significant.

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 (one sentence) and front-loaded with the core purpose and critical requirement. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it easy for an agent to parse 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 (destructive operation with 5 parameters), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the safety requirement (confirm/dry-run), and with annotations providing behavioral hints and an output schema handling return values, the description focuses on what's most critical. It could mention sibling alternatives like 'instance.reinstall' for non-destructive changes, but it's adequate.

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 fully documents all 5 parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain 'uuids' or 'deleteFile' further), so it meets the baseline but doesn't provide extra semantic 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 ('Delete') and resource ('MCSManager instances'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from other destructive operations like 'file.delete' or 'server.kill' among the many sibling tools, which prevents 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 guidance by stating 'Requires confirm=true or dry_run=true.' This tells the agent exactly when to use this tool (when confirmation or dry-run is needed for deletion) and implies when not to use it (without these safeguards), which is crucial for a destructive operation.

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