Minecraft Ops MCP

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond what annotations provide. While annotations indicate this is a non-readOnly, non-destructive, non-idempotent operation with openWorldHint, the description reveals this is a high-risk operation requiring confirmation or dry-run mode. This disclosure about risk and safety mechanisms provides crucial context that annotations alone don't convey.

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 with just two sentences that each serve distinct purposes: the first states the core functionality, the second provides critical usage requirements. There's zero wasted language, and the most important information (the requirement) is front-loaded in the second sentence, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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 tool has annotations covering safety aspects, 100% schema description coverage, and an output schema (implied by context signals), the description provides adequate context. It addresses the high-risk nature of the operation and safety requirements, which is crucial for a mutation tool. The main gap is lack of information about what happens on success/failure or return values, but since an output schema exists, this isn't required in the description.

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 baseline is 3. The description mentions confirm and dry_run parameters in the context of requirements, which adds some semantic value about their purpose and relationship. However, it doesn't provide additional meaning about the players parameter beyond what's in the schema, so it doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond the structured 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 clearly states the action ('Add players') and resource ('to the allowlist through MSMP'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like msmp.allowlist.remove or msmp.allowlist.set by specifying addition rather than removal or replacement. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with msmp.allowlist.clear or msmp.allowlist.get, which would have earned 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', which tells the agent when and how to use this tool. This directly addresses the high-risk nature of the operation and offers alternatives (confirm for execution vs. dry_run for preview), making it clear when to use each parameter option.

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