Minecraft Ops MCP

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

Annotations already provide comprehensive behavioral hints (readOnlyHint: true, destructiveHint: false, idempotentHint: true, openWorldHint: true), so the agent knows this is a safe, repeatable read operation. The description adds minimal value beyond confirming it's a 'get' operation, but doesn't provide additional context about what the IP ban list contains or how it's structured.

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 communicates the essential purpose without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately understandable to an agent scanning tool descriptions.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, comprehensive annotations, and existence of an output schema), the description is reasonably complete. The output schema will handle return value documentation, and annotations cover behavioral aspects. The main gap is lack of differentiation from sibling tools, but for a straightforward read operation, this is acceptable.

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 schema fully documents the empty input requirement. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose rather than unnecessary parameter explanations.

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 ('Get') and resource ('IP ban list through MSMP'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from its sibling 'msmp.bans.get' which likely retrieves a different type of ban list, leaving some ambiguity about scope.

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. With multiple ban-related tools in the sibling list (msmp.bans.get, msmp.ip_bans.add, msmp.ip_bans.clear, etc.), there's no indication of when this specific IP ban retrieval tool is appropriate versus other ban management operations.

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