Minecraft Ops MCP

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies that the operation is high-risk and requires confirmation or dry-run, which annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true) do not cover. This helps the agent understand safety protocols without contradicting annotations.

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 (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by essential usage requirements. Every word earns its place, with no wasted information, making it 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 (a mutation operation with safety constraints), the description is complete: it states the purpose, usage rules, and behavioral context. With annotations covering safety hints and an output schema present (implied by context signals), no additional explanation of return values or low-level behavior is needed.

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 input schema already documents all parameters (ips, confirm, dry_run) thoroughly. The description adds minimal semantics by mentioning confirm and dry_run requirements but does not provide additional meaning beyond what the schema offers, meeting the baseline for high 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 specific action ('Remove IP bans') and resource ('through MSMP'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like msmp.ip_bans.add, msmp.ip_bans.get, msmp.ip_bans.set, and msmp.ip_bans.clear. It precisely identifies what the tool does without being vague or tautological.

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 by specifying required conditions ('Requires confirm=true or dry_run=true'), providing clear guidance on parameter usage. It distinguishes it from alternatives like msmp.ip_bans.clear (which removes all bans) by focusing on specific IP removal.

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