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 valuable context about the 'deep-merge' behavior and the safety requirement (confirm/dry_run), which goes beyond annotations. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or specific error conditions.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste: first states the core operation, second provides critical usage requirement. Perfectly front-loaded with essential information, no redundant phrasing.

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 has annotations covering safety profile, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema (implied by context), the description is complete enough. It covers the core operation, distinguishes from siblings, and provides crucial safety guidance for a mutation 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 all parameters are documented in the schema. The description mentions 'patch' and the confirm/dry_run requirements, but doesn't add significant meaning beyond what the schema already provides about parameter purposes or interactions.

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 ('Read the current MCSManager instance config, deep-merge a patch, and update it') with the exact resource ('MCSManager instance config'). It distinguishes from sibling 'instance.update_config' by specifying the patch/merge approach versus potentially full replacement.

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?

Explicitly states when to use with 'Requires confirm=true or dry_run=true' for high-risk operations, providing clear prerequisites. The sibling context shows 'instance.update_config' as an alternative, implying this tool is for partial updates via patching versus potentially full config replacement.

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