Minecraft Ops MCP

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying the confirm/dry_run requirement for high-risk operations. While annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, the description provides practical safety guidance that helps the agent understand operational constraints. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each serve distinct purposes: stating the core function and specifying critical usage requirements. There is zero wasted language, and the most important information (the confirm/dry_run requirement) is appropriately front-loaded in the second sentence.

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 destructive nature (annotations show destructiveHint=true), the description provides exactly what's needed: clear purpose, safety requirements, and usage conditions. With comprehensive annotations and an output schema available, the description focuses appropriately on operational guidance rather than repeating structured information.

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 meaningful semantic context beyond what's in the schema descriptions. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate but not enhanced parameter understanding.

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 ('Stop') and target resource ('an MCSManager instance'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like server.start, server.restart, and server.kill. It provides precise verb+resource pairing 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 through the requirement 'Requires confirm=true or dry_run=true', providing clear usage conditions. It distinguishes from alternatives by specifying this is for stopping (not starting, restarting, or killing) instances, with explicit parameter requirements for high-risk operations.

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