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 valuable context by specifying the high-risk nature (implied by 'confirm=true for high-risk operations' in schema) and the dry-run option, which helps the agent understand safety considerations beyond 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 (one sentence) and front-loaded with the essential information. Every word serves a purpose, with no wasted text or redundancy.

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 operation with safety parameters), annotations provide good coverage, and an output schema exists. The description focuses on the critical invocation requirement (confirm/dry_run) which is appropriate, though it could mention the relationship to sibling operator tools for full completeness.

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 three parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information 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 action ('Remove operators') and resource ('through MSMP'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'msmp.operators.clear' or 'msmp.operators.set', 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 explicitly states when to use the tool by specifying the required conditions: 'Requires confirm=true or dry_run=true.' This provides clear guidance on the prerequisites for invocation, though it doesn't mention alternatives or when-not scenarios.

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