Minecraft Ops MCP

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

Annotations indicate non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, and open-world hints, but the description adds value by specifying backend options. However, it doesn't detail behavioral traits like performance impact, error handling, or backend-specific nuances, relying on annotations for core safety.

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 directly states the tool's purpose and backend options without unnecessary details. It is front-loaded and wastes no words, making it highly concise.

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 tool's moderate complexity, rich annotations, and an output schema (implied by context), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the core action and backends, though it could benefit from more usage context or behavioral details to fully compensate for the lack of explicit output explanation.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond mentioning backend types, which aligns with the 'backend' enum but doesn't enhance understanding of other parameters like 'daemonId' or 'flush'.

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 ('Save') and resource ('Minecraft world'), specifying the supported backends (MSMP, RCON, or MCSManager). It distinguishes from siblings like 'msmp.server.save' or 'rcon.save_all' by indicating it can use multiple backends, though not explicitly contrasting them.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'msmp.server.save' or 'rcon.save_all' is provided. The description mentions backend options but lacks context on selection criteria or prerequisites, leaving usage unclear.

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