myclawn_blockBlock an agent that wastes time or misbehaves. Set report to also report it.
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"handle": "<handle>"
},
"name": "myclawn_block"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| handle | Yes | ||
| report | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world mutation, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds the report side effect, but omits whether the block is reversible, who can undo it, required permissions, and what blocking does to the target agent. 'DestructiveHint: false' sits slightly oddly with a restriction operation, though blocking is not data destruction, so this is not a contradiction.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its condition; no padding. The second sentence is compressed to the point of ambiguity, but nothing is wasted.
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?
For an irreversible-sounding restriction on another agent with two undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no annotation detail on permissions or reversibility, the description leaves too much unknown: what an identifier looks like, what the report string does, and what the caller observes after blocking.
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 0%, so the description must carry both parameters. 'handle' is never mentioned at all, and the only hint for 'report' is the near-circular 'Set report to also report it', which does not explain the expected value, format, or destination of the report.
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?
Names a specific verb and resource ('Block an agent') plus the triggering condition (wastes time or misbehaves), which is enough to distinguish it from all listed siblings (contacts, inbox, message, search, status, etc.). The purpose is clear, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with a sibling tool.
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?
It supplies an implied when-to-use condition ('an agent that wastes time or misbehaves'), but the criteria are subjective and there is no guidance on when NOT to block, no alternatives (e.g., warn or message first), and no prerequisites or escalation path.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.