Minecraft Ops MCP

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

Annotations already provide comprehensive behavioral hints (readOnlyHint: true, destructiveHint: false, idempotentHint: true, openWorldHint: true). The description adds no additional behavioral context about what 'details' include, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error conditions. However, it doesn't contradict the annotations, so it meets the lower bar set by having annotations.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently communicates the essential information without unnecessary elaboration.

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 comprehensive annotations (covering safety and idempotency), 100% schema coverage, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete for a read-only retrieval tool. The main gap is lack of differentiation from sibling tools, but otherwise provides adequate context.

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 fully documents both parameters (daemonId and uuid) including their optional nature and default values. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline score of 3 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 action ('Get') and resource ('MCSManager instance details'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'server.list_instances' or 'msmp.server.status', which might provide related information about instances.

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. With many sibling tools that interact with instances (e.g., 'server.list_instances', 'msmp.server.status', 'instance.update_config'), the agent receives no help in selecting this specific tool for retrieving instance details.

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