Minecraft Ops MCP

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

The annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, which already signal a high-risk write operation. The description adds valuable context by emphasizing the high-risk nature ('Requires confirm=true or dry_run=true'), which reinforces the destructive behavior and provides a safety mechanism. It doesn't contradict annotations and offers practical guidance beyond them.

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 with just two sentences that are front-loaded with the core action and critical usage requirement. Every word serves a purpose, with no wasted information, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 (destructive operation with safety parameters), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose, usage prerequisites, and risk context. With annotations providing safety hints and an output schema likely detailing the result, the description doesn't need to explain return values, but it could briefly note the scope (e.g., 'all IP bans') for fuller context.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear explanations for 'confirm' ('Required true for high-risk operations') and 'dry_run' ('Return a preview without executing'). The description mentions these parameters but doesn't add significant meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it 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 action ('Clear') and the target ('IP ban list through MSMP'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its sibling 'msmp.bans.clear' (which likely clears general bans rather than IP-specific bans), missing full sibling differentiation.

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', which tells the agent when to use this tool (with those parameters) and implies when not to use it (without them). This is a clear prerequisite that helps avoid misuse.

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