Minecraft Ops MCP

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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only, not destructive, not idempotent, and open-world. The description adds valuable context about the confirm/dry_run safety mechanism, which isn't captured in annotations. However, it doesn't explain what 'kick' actually does behaviorally (e.g., temporary removal vs. ban, message visibility, reconnection rules).

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 perfectly concise - one sentence that states the purpose and the critical usage requirement. Every word serves a purpose with zero redundancy, and the most important information (the confirm/dry_run requirement) is included.

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 potentially impactful player management tool with annotations and an output schema, the description covers the essential safety requirement. However, for a tool that affects players, additional context about what 'kick' means operationally and potential side effects would make it more complete.

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 already documents all 4 parameters thoroughly. The description mentions confirm and dry_run requirements but doesn't add meaningful semantic context beyond what's in the parameter descriptions themselves, so it meets but doesn't exceed the baseline.

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 ('kick') and target ('one or more players through MSMP'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this from other player management tools like msmp.bans.add or msmp.operators.remove, 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 provides explicit guidance about required parameters ('Requires confirm=true or dry_run=true'), which is crucial for safe usage. It doesn't mention when to use this versus alternatives like bans or when kicking is preferred over other actions, preventing a perfect score.

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