Minecraft Ops MCP

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying the confirm/dry_run requirement for what it implies is a 'high-risk operation' (though this term appears in the schema). Annotations already indicate this is a non-readOnly, non-destructive operation with openWorldHint=true, but the description usefully clarifies the safety mechanism. 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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each serve distinct purposes: stating the core operation and specifying critical usage requirements. There's zero wasted text, and the most important information (the confirm/dry_run requirement) is appropriately front-loaded.

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 aspects (non-destructive, non-idempotent) and an output schema exists, the description provides sufficient context for a removal operation. It covers the essential 'what' and critical 'how' (safety requirements), though it doesn't detail what happens to players after removal or error conditions.

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 schema already fully documents all three parameters. The description mentions the confirm/dry_run requirement but doesn't add semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides about players being removed. 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 specific action ('Remove players from the allowlist') and identifies the target resource ('through MSMP'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like msmp.allowlist.add, msmp.allowlist.clear, and msmp.allowlist.set by focusing on removal operations.

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 states when to use this tool by specifying required parameters ('Requires confirm=true or dry_run=true'), which provides clear operational prerequisites. It distinguishes from alternatives like msmp.allowlist.clear (which removes all players) by focusing on selective removal.

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