Minecraft Ops MCP

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond this: it explains that read_only=true skips confirmation, confirm=true is required for high-risk operations, and implies a confirmation mechanism exists. This clarifies safety protocols not covered by 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 two concise sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second provides critical usage guidelines. Every word earns its place, and it's front-loaded with essential information.

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 (generic RPC caller with safety parameters), the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage rules, and safety mechanisms. With annotations covering operational hints and an output schema presumably detailing return values, no additional explanation is needed.

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 5 parameters. The description adds minimal semantic context: it mentions read_only and confirm parameters but doesn't explain method or params beyond what the schema says. This meets the baseline 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 tool's purpose: 'Call an arbitrary MSMP JSON-RPC method.' This is specific (verb+resource) and distinguishes it from all sibling tools, which are specific operations rather than a generic RPC caller. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other MSMP tools (like msmp.server.status) that might also call methods.

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 guidelines: 'Set read_only=true for safe reads; otherwise confirm=true is required.' This tells the agent when to use which parameters for different scenarios (safe reads vs. high-risk operations), offering clear conditional guidance.

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