Minecraft Ops MCP

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

The description adds important behavioral context about the high-risk nature of the operation and the safety requirements (confirm or dry_run), which goes beyond what the annotations provide. However, it doesn't explain what 'Replace' means operationally - whether this completely overwrites existing operators, what happens to previous operators, or any other side effects. The annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true) provide some safety context but the description adds useful operational constraints.

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 - just two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second provides critical safety guidance. No wasted words, perfectly front-loaded with essential information.

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 that this is a mutation tool (replacing operator lists) with comprehensive annotations, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema (implied by 'Has output schema: true'), the description provides adequate context. The safety requirement guidance is particularly valuable for this high-risk operation. However, it could better explain what 'Replace' means in practice relative to the sibling tools that modify the same resource.

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 input schema already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it mentions the confirm and dry_run parameters but only repeats their safety function already documented in the schema descriptions. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 ('operator list through MSMP'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from its siblings like 'msmp.operators.add', 'msmp.operators.remove', or 'msmp.operators.clear', which all operate on the same operator list resource but with different actions.

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 explicit usage guidance by stating 'Requires confirm=true or dry_run=true' for this high-risk operation. This clearly indicates when the tool can be invoked (with those safety parameters) and implies when not to use it (without those parameters).

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