Minecraft Ops MCP

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

The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by specifying the safety requirements (confirm or dry_run parameters). While annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, the description reinforces this by emphasizing the high-risk nature and providing a safety mechanism, which is helpful additional behavioral information.

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 (one sentence) and front-loaded with the core action. Every word serves a purpose - stating the action, target, and critical usage requirements with zero wasted verbiage.

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 destructive nature of the tool (annotations show destructiveHint=true), the description appropriately emphasizes safety requirements. With an output schema present, it doesn't need to explain return values. The description provides sufficient context for this high-risk operation while being appropriately brief.

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 fully documents all four parameters. The description mentions confirm and dry_run parameters but doesn't add semantic meaning beyond what's in the schema descriptions. It 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 ('Force-kill') and target resource ('an MCSManager instance'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like server.stop or server.restart. It uses precise language that leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool by specifying the required parameters ('Requires confirm=true or dry_run=true'), which serves as a safety mechanism. This provides clear guidance on the conditions under which the tool should be invoked versus avoided.

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