Minecraft Ops MCP

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies that the operation requires confirmation or dry-run for high-risk actions, which is not covered by annotations (which only indicate it's not read-only, destructive, or idempotent, and is open-world). This enhances safety awareness, though it doesn't detail rate limits or exact risk levels.

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 and front-loaded, consisting of only two sentences that directly state the purpose and critical usage requirement. Every word serves a clear purpose, with no wasted information, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 (a write operation with safety parameters), rich annotations (covering read/write, destructiveness, idempotency, and world state), and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete enough. It effectively communicates the core action and safety requirements without needing to explain return values or repeat structured data.

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 parameters (setting, value, confirm, dry_run). The description does not add additional semantic details about parameters beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 without compensating for gaps.

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 specific action ('Set one server setting through MSMP') with the resource ('server setting'), distinguishing it from siblings like msmp.server_settings.get (read) and msmp.server_settings.list (list). It precisely identifies the tool's function without being vague or tautological.

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 explicitly provides usage guidance by stating 'Requires confirm=true or dry_run=true,' which indicates when to use this tool (for setting server settings) and includes prerequisites (confirmation or dry-run for safety). It differentiates from read-only alternatives like msmp.server_settings.get by emphasizing the write operation with safety measures.

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