Minecraft Ops MCP

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

Annotations already cover key behavioral traits: readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds minimal context by specifying the query types ('daytime/gametime/day'), but doesn't disclose additional behaviors like response format, error conditions, or RCON-specific requirements. 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 front-loads the core purpose. It avoids unnecessary words, though it could be slightly more structured by separating the query types for clarity. Every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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 (1 optional parameter), rich annotations (covering safety and idempotency), and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It specifies the query types, which is useful, but lacks context on why or when to use this tool, which is a minor gap.

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 'query' fully documented in the schema (including type, enum values, and default). The description only repeats the enum values without adding meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining what each query type returns or when to use one over another. Baseline 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 tool's purpose: 'Query server time through RCON using time query daytime/gametime/day.' It specifies the verb ('query'), resource ('server time'), and mechanism ('through RCON'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like 'msmp.server.status' or 'rcon.command' that might also provide time-related information.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention why one would choose this over other time-related tools in the sibling list (e.g., 'msmp.server.status'), nor does it specify any prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases for querying server time through RCON.

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