Minecraft Ops MCP

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

Annotations already provide comprehensive behavioral information (readOnlyHint: true, destructiveHint: false, idempotentHint: true, openWorldHint: true). The description adds minimal value by specifying 'output logs' but doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like log format, real-time vs historical access, or any rate limits. 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 states the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns its place, and the structure is 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 comprehensive annotations (covering safety and idempotency), 100% schema coverage, and the existence of an output schema, the description is reasonably complete for a read-only log retrieval tool. However, it could better address the tool's role within the broader sibling tool ecosystem.

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, all parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline but doesn't enhance understanding of parameter semantics.

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 ('Read') and resource ('MCSManager instance output logs'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'server.get_instance' or 'server.get_daemon_system' that also retrieve information about server components, so it doesn't reach the highest clarity level.

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 available (like 'server.list_instances' or 'msmp.server.status'), there's no indication of when log retrieval is appropriate versus other monitoring or diagnostic tools.

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