Minecraft Ops MCP

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond this, mentioning it retrieves settings 'through MSMP' which suggests a specific protocol or interface. It doesn't disclose rate limits, authentication needs, or error behaviors, but with comprehensive annotations, the bar is lower.

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 that front-loads the core purpose ('Get one server setting through MSMP') and provides clarifying examples. There is no wasted language or redundancy, making it appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter.

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 low complexity (one parameter), comprehensive annotations, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It specifies the resource and provides examples, though it could benefit from more explicit usage guidelines or behavioral details. The annotations and schema cover most structured information needs.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'setting' fully documented in the schema as 'Setting name after minecraft:serversettings/, for example difficulty.' The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as format details or valid values. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get one server setting through MSMP' with specific examples ('difficulty or motd'). It distinguishes from the sibling 'msmp.server_settings.list' by specifying 'one server setting' versus listing multiple settings. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other get operations like 'msmp.gamerules.get' or 'msmp.allowlist.get' beyond the resource type.

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 implies usage context by mentioning 'through MSMP' and providing examples, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose this over 'msmp.server_settings.list' for multiple settings or other get operations for different resource types. The examples help but don't constitute explicit guidelines.

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