Minecraft Ops MCP

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this is a risky write operation. The description adds context about the confirm/dry_run safety requirements, which is useful beyond annotations. However, it doesn't disclose other behavioral traits like potential downtime, data loss specifics, or rate limits, leaving some gaps in transparency.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core action and critical safety requirement. Every word earns its place with zero waste, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 7 parameters), annotations cover safety hints, and an output schema exists (so return values needn't be explained). The description adequately covers the main action and safety requirement, but could be more complete by mentioning potential impacts like instance downtime or data overwriting, which are relevant for a reinstall tool.

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 7 parameters. The description mentions 'confirm=true or dry_run=true' but doesn't add meaning beyond what the schema already states about these parameters. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description provides no extra parameter insights.

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 ('Reinstall') and resource ('an MCSManager instance from a package URL'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'instance.update_config' or 'instance.run_update_task', which might also involve instance modifications, so it doesn't reach the highest 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 implied usage guidance by stating 'Requires confirm=true or dry_run=true', which indicates safety prerequisites but doesn't explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'instance.update_config' for non-reinstall changes or 'instance.create' for new instances. No explicit exclusions or named alternatives are provided.

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