Minecraft Ops MCP

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

Annotations indicate this is a mutable (readOnlyHint=false), non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world operation. The description adds value by specifying the confirm/dry_run requirement for high-risk operations, which isn't covered by annotations. However, it doesn't detail other behavioral aspects like error handling, rate limits, or what 'high-risk' entails beyond the schema hints.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and immediately states the key requirement. There's no wasted verbiage, and it effectively communicates essential information without unnecessary elaboration.

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 (mutation with risk controls), annotations cover safety and mutability, and an output schema exists (so return values are documented elsewhere). The description complements this by highlighting the confirm/dry_run requirement, which is critical for usage. It could be more complete by mentioning sibling tools or broader context, but it adequately addresses the core operational need.

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 parameters like 'rule' (game rule key) and 'confirm' (required for high-risk operations). The description doesn't add extra semantic details beyond the schema, such as examples of rule keys or value formats, but it reinforces the confirm/dry_run requirement, aligning with the schema's descriptions.

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 ('Update') and resource ('a game rule through MSMP'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'msmp.gamerules.get' or 'msmp.server_settings.set', which would require more specific context about what distinguishes game rules from other settings.

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 conditions ('Requires confirm=true or dry_run=true'), which is helpful for guiding when to use this tool. It doesn't mention alternatives or exclusions, such as when to use 'msmp.gamerules.get' for reading instead, but the requirement guidance is clear and practical.

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