Minecraft Ops MCP

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds valuable context about the high-risk nature ('high-risk operations' implied by confirm requirement) and preview capability (dry_run). It doesn't contradict annotations and provides additional behavioral insight beyond the structured hints.

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 (one sentence) and front-loaded with the core purpose followed by parameter requirements. Every word serves a clear purpose with zero redundancy, making it highly efficient for agent comprehension.

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 destructive nature (annotations show destructiveHint=true), the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and safety mechanisms (confirm/dry_run). The existence of an output schema means return values don't need explanation. It could slightly improve by mentioning what 'clear' entails (e.g., removes all bans vs. resets to default).

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 both parameters (confirm, dry_run) well-documented in the schema. The description mentions these parameters but doesn't add significant semantic value beyond what the schema already provides, maintaining the baseline score 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 ('Clear') and target resource ('player ban list through MSMP'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like msmp.bans.get, msmp.bans.add, msmp.bans.remove, and msmp.bans.set. It precisely communicates the tool's function without ambiguity.

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 the required parameters ('Requires confirm=true or dry_run=true'), providing clear operational constraints. It implicitly distinguishes from alternatives like msmp.bans.remove (individual removal) or msmp.bans.set (replacement), though it doesn't name them directly.

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