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 that it's a 'high-risk operation' requiring confirmation or dry-run, which provides important behavioral context beyond annotations. However, it doesn't explain what 'high-risk' entails (e.g., potential downtime, data loss) or other behavioral traits like rate limits or authentication needs.

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 at just two sentences with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately follows with critical usage requirements. Every word serves a clear purpose in helping the agent understand and use the tool correctly.

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 (state-saving operation with high-risk warnings), the description covers the essential purpose and safety requirements. With annotations providing safety context and an output schema presumably documenting return values, the description is reasonably complete. However, it could better explain what 'server state' encompasses and how this differs from other save operations.

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 fully documents all three parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema does all the parameter documentation work.

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 the tool 'Save server state through MSMP' which provides a clear verb ('Save') and resource ('server state'), but it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'server.save_world' or 'rcon.save_all'. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity about what distinguishes this MSMP-based save from other save operations.

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: 'Requires confirm=true or dry_run=true.' This clearly indicates when the tool can be invoked (with those parameter values) but doesn't specify when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'server.save_world' or 'rcon.save_all'. The guidance is helpful but incomplete regarding sibling differentiation.

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