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 specifies the confirm/dry_run requirement for high-risk operations, which isn't covered by the existing annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false). While it doesn't detail rate limits or authentication needs, it provides crucial safety constraints that help the agent understand operational requirements.

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 perfectly concise at just one sentence that contains all essential information: the core purpose and the critical usage requirement. There's zero wasted text, and the most important constraint (confirm/dry_run requirement) is included upfront.

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 this is a mutation tool (update operation) with an output schema available, the description provides sufficient context. It covers the core purpose and critical safety requirements. While it doesn't explain return values (handled by output schema) or all behavioral aspects, it addresses the most important operational constraint for a potentially high-risk update 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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema descriptions (like daemonId defaults or config object details). This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 ('Update') and resource ('MCSManager instance config'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like instance.update_config_patch (which likely does partial updates) and instance.create (which creates new instances). The verb+resource combination is precise and unambiguous.

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 provides when-to-use guidance by stating 'Requires confirm=true or dry_run=true for high-risk operations.' This creates clear prerequisites and distinguishes it from tools that might not require such confirmation, helping the agent understand the safety protocol needed for this operation.

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