Minecraft Ops MCP

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

Annotations cover key behavioral traits: readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, indicating a safe, repeatable read operation. The description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'status' entails). However, it doesn't contradict the annotations, so it meets the lower bar with annotations present but adds minimal value.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and to the point, though it could be more informative. It earns a high score for brevity but loses a point for under-specification, as it could convey more meaning without sacrificing conciseness.

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, annotations covering safety, and an output schema), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks detail on what 'server status' includes (e.g., health metrics, configuration), which would help an agent interpret results. With annotations and output schema, it's complete enough for basic use but could be more informative.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter semantics, but that's unnecessary here. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as the schema fully handles the parameter aspect without requiring description compensation.

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 server status through MSMP' restates the tool name and title with minimal elaboration. It specifies the verb 'get' and resource 'server status', but lacks detail on what status information is retrieved (e.g., uptime, performance, player count) and doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'server.get_daemon_system' or 'server.get_instance'. This is a tautological restatement rather than a clear, specific purpose.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, timing (e.g., for monitoring or diagnostics), or comparisons to sibling tools like 'msmp.discover' or 'server.get_instance'. The description offers only a basic function without context for selection.

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