Minecraft Ops MCP

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

Annotations already declare this as a read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world operation, covering key behavioral traits. The description adds no additional context about what 'operators' entails, potential authentication requirements, rate limits, or response format. However, it doesn't contradict the annotations, so it meets the lower bar with annotations present.

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?

While the description is brief ('Get operators through MSMP'), it's under-specified rather than concise. The single sentence fails to convey essential information about what the tool does, making it inefficient in terms of information density. True conciseness would balance brevity with clarity, which this lacks.

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, read-only operation) and the presence of annotations and an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it doesn't explain what 'operators' are or provide any context about the data returned, leaving gaps that could confuse an agent about the tool's purpose and output.

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 lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter gaps, so it appropriately avoids discussing parameters. A baseline of 4 is justified since no parameter information is required.

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 'Get operators through MSMP' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'msmp.operators.get' without adding meaningful specificity. It doesn't explain what 'operators' are in this context (likely server administrators with elevated privileges) or what format the data is returned in, making it minimally informative beyond the name itself.

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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'msmp.operators.add', 'msmp.operators.remove', or 'msmp.operators.set' that handle different operations on operators, nor does it specify prerequisites or appropriate contexts for retrieving operator data.

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