Minecraft Ops MCP

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

Annotations indicate this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world operation. The description adds value by specifying the high-risk nature requiring confirmation or dry-run, which isn't covered by annotations. However, it doesn't detail potential side effects like overwriting existing allowlist entries or error conditions, leaving some behavioral aspects unclear.

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 with just two sentences, front-loading the core action and immediately following with critical usage requirements. Every word serves a purpose, with no redundant information or unnecessary elaboration.

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 (high-risk operation with 3 parameters), rich annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the core action and safety requirements but could benefit from mentioning sibling tools for context or clarifying what 'replace' entails compared to other allowlist operations.

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 all parameters (players, confirm, dry_run). The description adds minimal semantics by implying 'players' is for the full allowlist and linking confirm/dry_run to risk management, but doesn't provide additional context beyond what the schema already documents, such as format examples for player entries.

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 ('Replace the allowlist') and resource ('through MSMP'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like msmp.allowlist.add, msmp.allowlist.remove, or msmp.allowlist.clear, which all modify the allowlist in different ways.

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,' indicating when to use this tool (for high-risk operations requiring confirmation or preview) and implicitly when not to use it (when neither condition is met). This helps the agent understand the necessary parameters for safe invocation.

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