Minecraft Ops MCP

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

Annotations indicate this is a non-readOnly, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world operation. The description adds context by implying high-risk ('Requires confirm=true or dry_run=true'), which isn't covered by annotations. However, it doesn't detail other behavioral aspects like rate limits, error handling, or specific permissions needed, so it only adds moderate value.

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 one sentence that front-loads the purpose and key usage requirement. Every word earns its place, making it efficient and easy to parse without any waste.

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, a detailed input schema, and an output schema (implied by context signals), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the core purpose and critical usage constraint. However, for a high-risk operation like adding operators, it could benefit from more context on outcomes or error cases, though the output schema may handle return values.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining 'players' formats or 'permission_level' ranges. This 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 ('Add operators') and the system ('through MSMP'), which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'msmp.operators.set' or 'msmp.operators.clear' beyond the 'add' verb, which is why it doesn't reach 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 explicitly states when to use this tool by specifying prerequisites: 'Requires confirm=true or dry_run=true.' This provides clear guidance on the required conditions for invocation, which is essential for high-risk operations.

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