Minecraft Ops MCP

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds that this is a 'high-risk operation' requiring confirmation or dry-run, which is valuable context beyond annotations. However, it doesn't disclose what the update task does (e.g., software updates, configuration changes), potential side effects, or execution behavior like timeouts.

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 with two sentences that directly address the tool's purpose and critical usage requirement. Every word serves a purpose with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration. It's front-loaded with the main action and immediately follows with the key constraint.

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 that there's an output schema (not shown but indicated in context signals), the description doesn't need to explain return values. The description covers the essential action and safety requirement, but for a tool that runs an update task (potentially complex with side effects), it could benefit from more context about what the update entails. The annotations provide good structural coverage, making this reasonably complete.

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%, with all parameters well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the full burden of parameter documentation.

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 states the action ('Run the configured MCSManager update task') which is clear but vague about what the update task actually does. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'instance.update_config' or 'instance.update_config_patch' which also involve updates. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity about what kind of update this performs.

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 guidance on parameter requirements ('Requires confirm=true or dry_run=true'), which tells the agent when this tool can be invoked. However, it doesn't explain when to choose this tool over other update-related tools like 'instance.update_config' or what context triggers running an update task versus other operations.

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