Minecraft Ops MCP

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, indicating this is a destructive write operation. The description adds valuable context by specifying the confirm/dry_run safety mechanism, which helps the agent understand the operational constraints beyond what annotations provide. It doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or what exactly gets destroyed, but adds meaningful safety context.

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?

Two concise sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by critical safety information. Every word earns its place - no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration. Perfectly sized for this tool's complexity.

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 destructive nature (destructiveHint=true), the description appropriately focuses on the safety mechanism (confirm/dry_run). With annotations covering the destructive/read-write profile and an output schema existing, the description doesn't need to explain return values. It could benefit from clarifying what 'clear' means operationally, but covers the most critical aspects for a high-risk tool.

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%, with both parameters well-documented in the schema. The description mentions the confirm/dry_run requirement but doesn't add semantic meaning beyond what the schema already states about 'high-risk operations' and 'preview without executing'. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states 'Clear operators through MSMP' which indicates the action (clear) and resource (operators), but it's vague about what 'clear' means specifically - does it remove all operators, reset to defaults, or something else? It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like msmp.operators.remove or msmp.operators.set, which handle similar operator management.

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 parameter requirements ('Requires confirm=true or dry_run=true'), which implicitly guides usage for this high-risk operation. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like msmp.operators.remove (for specific operators) or msmp.operators.set (for setting a specific list).

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