Minecraft Ops MCP

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds value by specifying that it discovers settings 'from rpc.discover,' clarifying the data source, but doesn't detail rate limits, authentication needs, or output format. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 has 0 parameters, rich annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.), and an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It specifies the action and data source, though it could better explain the relationship with sibling tools or the nature of the discovered settings (e.g., format or use cases).

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 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the input schema fully documents the lack of parameters. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, so it meets the baseline for a parameterless tool by not introducing confusion or redundancy.

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 'discovers readable and writable MSMP server settings from rpc.discover,' which provides a specific verb ('discover') and resource ('MSMP server settings'). However, it doesn't clearly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'msmp.server_settings.get' or 'msmp.discover,' leaving the exact scope and differentiation vague.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'msmp.server_settings.get' for retrieving specific settings or 'msmp.discover' for broader discovery. It lacks explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions, providing minimal usage direction.

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