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), so the description doesn't need to repeat safety information. The description adds minimal value beyond annotations by specifying the resource scope ('MCSManager daemon'), but doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication requirements, or pagination behavior details.

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 any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward list operation and gets directly to the point with no 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 that annotations provide comprehensive safety hints, the input schema has 100% description coverage, and an output schema exists, the description is reasonably complete for its purpose. However, it could benefit from mentioning the paginated nature of results or typical use cases to help the agent understand when this tool is most appropriate.

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 doesn't add any meaningful semantic context beyond what's in the schema descriptions - it doesn't explain relationships between parameters, provide usage examples, or clarify edge cases. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the work.

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 ('List instances') and the target resource ('on an MCSManager daemon'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from its sibling 'server.list_daemons' or other list operations, which would be needed for a perfect score.

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. There's no mention of when this tool is appropriate versus other instance-related tools (like 'server.get_instance' or 'instance.create'), nor any context about prerequisites or typical use cases.

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