Minecraft Ops MCP

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds value by mentioning the high-risk nature ('Requires confirm=true or dry_run=true'), which implies safety precautions, but doesn't elaborate on rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'add' specifically entails beyond the schema. No contradiction with annotations.

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 one sentence that front-loads the purpose and key requirement. Every word earns its place, and there's no unnecessary elaboration or redundancy.

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 (mutation with safety parameters), annotations cover basic behavioral hints, and an output schema exists (so return values are documented elsewhere). The description adds crucial safety context but could benefit from more on error handling or prerequisites. It's mostly complete but has minor gaps.

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%, so the schema fully documents all 6 parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining the relationship between 'confirm' and 'dry_run' or providing examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 player bans') and the target resource ('through MSMP'), which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'msmp.bans.set' or 'msmp.bans.remove', which would be needed for 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 to use specific parameters. However, it doesn't mention when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'msmp.bans.set' or 'msmp.ip_bans.add', nor does it provide exclusion criteria.

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