Minecraft Ops MCP

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

Annotations provide comprehensive safety information (readOnlyHint: true, destructiveHint: false, idempotentHint: true, openWorldHint: true), so the description doesn't need to repeat these. The description adds minimal context beyond annotations - it confirms this is a retrieval operation ('Get') but doesn't describe what format the allowlist data is returned in, whether there are rate limits, authentication requirements, or what 'MSMP' refers to specifically. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 - a single 5-word sentence. While arguably too brief for full clarity, every word earns its place: 'Get' specifies the action, 'allowlist' identifies the resource, and 'through MSMP' provides system context. There's no wasted verbiage or redundant information.

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 comprehensive annotations (readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent, openWorld), an output schema exists (so return values are documented elsewhere), and zero parameters with full schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, it could better explain what an 'allowlist' is in this MSMP context and what data format to expect, which would help an agent understand when to invoke this tool versus alternatives.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the parameter situation (none needed). The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it correctly doesn't mention any. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools where the schema provides complete 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 'Get the allowlist through MSMP' is tautological - it essentially restates the tool name 'msmp.allowlist.get' with slightly different wording. While it indicates a retrieval action ('Get') and the resource ('allowlist'), it doesn't specify what an allowlist is in this context or what data is actually retrieved. The description distinguishes from sibling tools like 'msmp.allowlist.add' or 'msmp.allowlist.set' only by the verb, not by clarifying scope or content.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the tool name suggests it retrieves allowlist data, there's no mention of when this is needed versus other allowlist operations (add, remove, clear, set) or other MSMP tools. The description doesn't indicate prerequisites, timing considerations, or relationship to other tools in the system.

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