Minecraft Ops MCP

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, covering key behavioral traits. The description adds valuable context by specifying the requirement for confirm=true or dry_run=true, which implies a high-risk operation needing user confirmation or a safe preview mode. This enhances transparency beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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 and front-loaded, consisting of just two sentences that directly state the purpose and usage requirement. Every word earns its place, with no wasted information, making it efficient and easy to parse for an AI agent.

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 two parameters), annotations cover safety and idempotency, and an output schema exists (though not provided in context), the description is reasonably complete. It addresses key usage constraints but could benefit from clarifying the scope of 'clear' (e.g., all entries) and differentiating from siblings for full completeness.

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 clear descriptions for both parameters (confirm and dry_run). The description adds minimal semantics by referencing these parameters in the usage requirement, but doesn't provide additional meaning beyond what the schema already documents. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('Clear') and target ('the allowlist through MSMP'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'msmp.allowlist.remove' or 'msmp.allowlist.set' beyond the 'clear' action, which might imply removing all entries versus selective removal.

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 context for usage by stating 'Requires confirm=true or dry_run=true,' which guides when to use the tool based on parameter conditions. However, it doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'msmp.allowlist.remove' for partial clearing or 'msmp.allowlist.set' for replacement, leaving some ambiguity in sibling differentiation.

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