Minecraft Ops MCP

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

Annotations indicate this is a non-readOnly, non-destructive, non-idempotent, openWorld operation. The description adds value by specifying the confirm/dry_run requirement for high-risk operations, which provides context beyond annotations. However, it doesn't disclose other behavioral traits like potential side effects, execution time, or error conditions that might be useful for an agent.

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 essential information. Every word earns its place, with no wasted text or redundancy.

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 complexity (starting a server instance), the description is reasonably complete. It mentions the high-risk nature and confirmation requirements, and with annotations covering safety aspects and an output schema presumably handling return values, the main gaps are lack of sibling differentiation and limited behavioral context.

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 4 parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline but doesn't provide extra semantic context.

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 ('Start') and target resource ('an MCSManager instance'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'server.restart' or 'server.kill' beyond the basic verb, missing explicit sibling distinction.

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 some usage context by stating requirements ('Requires confirm=true or dry_run=true'), which implies this is a high-risk operation needing confirmation. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'server.restart' or 'server.kill', nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites beyond the confirm/dry_run parameters.

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