Vericto account (OAuth)

Explain a block

explain_block

Read-onlyIdempotent

Why a query event (event_id, from the dashboard or a proxy error) or a CI check (report_id, optionally the line) was blocked, flagged or allowed: the rule, its condition, the enforcement action, and why it was only flagged (observe window, monitor mode, an observe allowlist). The SQL preview is sanitized and shown only to roles that see query detail in the dashboard. Read-only.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "explain_block"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`line`	No	With report_id: the statement starting on this line.
`event_id`	No	A query event of this workspace. Use this OR report_id.
`report_id`	No	A CI check report of this workspace. Use this OR event_id.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 7, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered, and the description adds real behavioral context: the SQL preview is sanitized and is returned only to roles that can see query detail, so output can vary by caller permissions. It does not describe error behavior when neither identifier is supplied, which matters because the schema marks no parameters required.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence carries purpose, inputs, and outputs, followed by a short permission note and a one-word read-only confirmation. It is dense but every clause contributes; a small readability cost comes from packing rule/condition/action/observe-window into one run-on list.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by naming the rule, condition, enforcement action, flag reason, and a sanitized SQL preview. It is complete for invocation except that the event_id-or-report_id requirement is implied rather than stated as a hard constraint.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description adds meaning beyond it by attributing each identifier to its source (dashboard/proxy error vs CI check) and clarifying that line only applies alongside report_id. It does not restate formats, which the schema handles.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb+resource: it explains why a query event (via event_id) or a CI check (via report_id) was blocked, flagged or allowed, and enumerates what is returned (rule, condition, enforcement action, observe-window rationale). That is far more specific than a restatement of the name. It does not explicitly name an overlapping sibling such as show_report or check_sql, so it sits just below 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.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Use context is concrete: event_id comes from the dashboard or a proxy error, report_id from a CI check, with an optional line to pin a statement. That tells an agent which input source maps to which situation. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance or naming an alternative tool for related questions.

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

All Vericto account (OAuth) tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?