Minecraft Ops MCP

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds minimal value by confirming it's a 'get' operation, but doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or what specific data the ban list includes beyond what annotations imply.

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 a single, clear sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the essential information ('Get the player ban list'), making it efficient and easy to parse, with no wasted content.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, annotations covering safety, and an output schema likely defining the ban list structure), the description is reasonably complete. It could be improved by clarifying the scope (e.g., all bans vs. active ones) or linking to sibling tools, but it adequately conveys the core functionality in context.

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 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the input schema fully documents that no inputs are required. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, so it appropriately avoids redundancy. A baseline of 4 is justified since the schema handles all parameter semantics effectively.

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 ('Get') and resource ('player ban list through MSMP'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like msmp.bans.set or msmp.ip_bans.get, which would require more specificity about what distinguishes this particular ban list retrieval.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like msmp.bans.set (for modifying bans) or msmp.ip_bans.get (for IP-specific bans), nor does it specify prerequisites or contextual constraints for retrieving the ban list.

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