Minecraft Ops MCP

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds important behavioral context about the confirm/dry_run requirement for high-risk operations, which isn't covered by annotations. However, it doesn't describe other behavioral aspects like what constitutes 'high-risk operations' or execution consequences.

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 with just one sentence that contains essential information about the tool's purpose and critical usage requirement. Every word earns its place with zero wasted content, making it front-loaded and efficient.

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 has an output schema (not shown but indicated as present), the description doesn't need to explain return values. It covers the essential action and critical safety requirement. However, for a command-sending tool with potential destructive operations, it could provide more context about what types of commands are appropriate or risky.

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 schema already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by mentioning confirm/dry_run requirements but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's in the parameter descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('send a raw console command') and target ('through MCSManager'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'rcon.command' or 'msmp.call' that also send commands, missing full sibling differentiation.

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 explicit usage conditions with 'Requires confirm=true or dry_run=true', clearly stating when the tool can be used. This gives specific guidance about mandatory parameter settings for operation, though it doesn't mention alternatives among sibling tools.

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