Minecraft Ops MCP

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-readOnly, non-destructive, non-idempotent operation with openWorldHint. The description adds valuable context about the high-risk nature (implied by confirm requirement) and preview capability (dry_run), which goes beyond annotations. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or what specifically gets created/modified.

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 perfectly concise with just two sentences that both earn their place. The first states the purpose, the second provides critical usage guidance. No wasted words or 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 has annotations, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema (implied by 'Has output schema: true'), the description provides good contextual completeness. It covers the high-risk nature and dry-run option, which are important for a mutation tool. The main gap is lack of explicit mention of what the tool returns, but the output schema should handle that.

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 schema fully documents all 6 parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema descriptions, so it meets the baseline of 3 for adequate coverage without adding extra value.

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 ('Add IP bans') and target resource ('through MSMP'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'msmp.bans.add' or 'msmp.ip_bans.set' beyond the 'IP' specification in the tool name itself.

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 with the requirement 'Requires confirm=true or dry_run=true,' providing clear operational guidance. This tells the agent the mandatory conditions for invocation, which is excellent usage guidance.

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