Minecraft Ops MCP

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent operation with open-world semantics. The description adds valuable context about the confirm/dry_run safety mechanism, which isn't covered by annotations. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects like player re-entry permissions or server notification behavior.

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 immediately by critical usage requirement. Every word serves a clear purpose with zero wasted text, making it easy for an AI agent to parse quickly.

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 this is a mutation tool with 3 parameters, 100% schema coverage, annotations covering key behavioral hints, and an output schema (implied by context signals), the description provides sufficient context. It covers the core purpose and critical safety requirement, though additional details about error conditions or return values could enhance completeness.

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 three parameters. The description mentions confirm and dry_run parameters but doesn't add semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., 'high-risk operations' and 'preview without executing' are already in schema descriptions). 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 specific action ('Remove player bans') and resource ('through MSMP'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like msmp.bans.add (which adds bans) and msmp.bans.get (which retrieves bans). The verb 'Remove' is precise and directly related to the tool's name.

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'), providing clear operational constraints. It implicitly distinguishes from alternatives like msmp.bans.clear (which removes all bans) by focusing on targeted removal of specific players.

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