Minecraft Ops MCP

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

Annotations already provide important behavioral hints (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true). The description adds minimal context by naming the three backends, but doesn't explain what 'broadcast' entails operationally (e.g., whether it's synchronous, how failures are handled, or what the broadcast scope is). 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 immediately conveys the core functionality. Every word earns its place, with no wasted verbiage or unnecessary elaboration. It's perfectly front-loaded with 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 presence of both comprehensive input schema (100% coverage) and output schema (implied by context signals), the description provides adequate context for a broadcast operation. It could be more complete by mentioning the broadcast scope (e.g., to all players) or success/failure behavior, but the structured data covers most 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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already documents all 6 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying that 'backend' can be one of three specific technologies. This meets the baseline for 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 specific action ('Broadcast a system chat message') and identifies the three supported backends (MSMP, RCON, MCSManager). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'server.send_command' or 'msmp.call' by focusing specifically on broadcasting chat messages rather than general commands or calls.

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 like 'server.send_command' or 'rcon.command', nor does it mention any prerequisites or constraints. It simply states what the tool does without indicating appropriate usage contexts or exclusions.

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