Minecraft Ops MCP

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it warns about the high-risk nature of replacement operations and specifies safety requirements (confirm/dry_run). Annotations already indicate it's not read-only, not destructive, not idempotent, and open-world, but the description appropriately emphasizes the risk and safety mechanisms without contradicting 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 (one sentence) and front-loaded with the core purpose and critical safety requirement. Every word earns its place, with no redundant information or fluff.

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 replacement operation with 6 parameters), annotations covering safety hints, and an output schema existing, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose and safety prerequisites well, but could benefit from mentioning the relationship to sibling tools (e.g., when to use set vs. add/clear).

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 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already documents all 6 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3. It doesn't compensate for gaps because there are none.

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 ('Replace') and target resource ('player ban list through MSMP'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like msmp.bans.add (add individual bans), msmp.bans.clear (remove all bans), and msmp.bans.get (retrieve bans). It precisely defines the tool's scope as a full replacement operation.

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' for safety, which helps the agent understand prerequisites. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate when to use this vs. alternatives like msmp.bans.add for incremental updates or msmp.bans.clear for removal, leaving some context gaps.

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