Minecraft Ops MCP

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

Annotations cover key behavioral traits (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the description doesn't need to repeat these. It adds value by specifying the exact RCON commands ('save-all' or 'save-all flush'), which clarifies the execution method beyond what annotations provide.

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—a single sentence that directly states the tool's function and parameter options without any fluff. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently communicates the essential information.

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 (one optional parameter, clear annotations, and an output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It specifies the RCON command syntax, which is crucial for usage. However, it lacks context on when to prefer this over other save tools, which slightly limits completeness.

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 single parameter 'flush' well-documented in the schema. The description mentions 'save-all flush' as an option, which aligns with the schema but doesn't add significant semantic detail beyond it. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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 action ('Save the world') and mechanism ('through RCON using save-all or save-all flush'), making the purpose understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'server.save_world' or 'msmp.server.save', but the RCON-specific context provides some implicit distinction.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'server.save_world' or 'msmp.server.save' is provided. The description mentions the specific RCON command syntax but doesn't explain the context or prerequisites for using RCON versus other save methods.

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