Minecraft Ops MCP

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

The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond what annotations provide. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, which fully covers safety and idempotency. The description's mention of 'rpc.discover' hints at a discovery operation but doesn't elaborate on what gets discovered. No contradiction with annotations exists, and the description doesn't add meaningful behavioral details like rate limits, authentication needs, or response format.

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 at one sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core instruction and doesn't contain any unnecessary elaboration. For a zero-parameter tool with comprehensive annotations, this brevity is appropriate and efficient.

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 (zero parameters, discovery operation) and the presence of rich annotations plus an output schema, the description is minimally complete but leaves significant gaps. While annotations cover safety and the output schema will describe return values, the description fails to explain what 'discover' actually means in this context—what information is retrieved, why it's useful, or how it integrates with other MSMP tools. For a discovery tool in a protocol context, more contextual explanation would be helpful.

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 baseline score is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters since none exist, and the schema already documents this completely. No additional parameter semantics are required or provided.

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 'Call rpc.discover on the Minecraft Server Management Protocol endpoint' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'msmp.discover' in different words. It doesn't specify what the tool actually does (e.g., discover server capabilities, list available endpoints, or retrieve protocol information). While it mentions the protocol context, it lacks a clear verb+resource combination that distinguishes its purpose from sibling tools.

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 explain what problem it solves, when it should be invoked (e.g., initial setup, protocol discovery), or how it differs from other MSMP tools like 'msmp.call' or 'msmp.server.status'. There's complete absence of usage context or prerequisites.

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