Minecraft Ops MCP

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world operation. The description adds useful context about the high-risk nature and the confirm/dry_run requirements, but doesn't elaborate on what 'replace' entails (e.g., overwriting existing bans) or potential side effects beyond what annotations cover.

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 directly state the purpose and critical usage requirement. Every word serves a clear purpose with zero waste, making it front-loaded and efficient.

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 high-risk operations), the description covers the essential safety requirement (confirm/dry_run) and purpose. With annotations providing behavioral hints and an output schema presumably covering return values, the description is reasonably complete though could benefit from clarifying what 'replace' means operationally.

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 details beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 without providing extra semantic 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 verb ('Replace') and resource ('IP ban list through MSMP'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'msmp.ip_bans.add' or 'msmp.ip_bans.remove', which would require a 5.

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 clear context about when to use it ('Requires confirm=true or dry_run=true'), which helps the agent understand prerequisites. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'msmp.ip_bans.add' or 'msmp.ip_bans.remove', which would be needed for a 5.

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