A block's files in full, the packages they need, and the command that adds it to a project.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | A block's name from list_blocks, such as sign-in. | |
| version | No | The @nuvui/react version in the project's package.json, such as 0.6.2 or ^0.6.0, for the docs of that release. Leave it out for the latest release. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / versionAdded value: +{
+ "description": "The @nuvui/react version in the project's package.json, such as 0.6.2 or ^0.6.0, for the docs of that release. Leave it out for the latest release.",
+ "maxLength": 40,
+ "minLength": 1,
+ "pattern": "^(?:\\^|~|>=|=)?v?\\d+(?:\\.(?:\\d+|x|\\*)){0,2}(?:-[0-9A-Za-z.-]+)?$",
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. With no output schema present, the description usefully carries the return-shape burden by naming the three payload components (files, packages, install command), which is real context beyond the annotations. It stops short of noting size or rate characteristics.
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?
A single compact clause with no filler, and the most important information (the full file contents) leads. It is arguably too terse as a fragment rather than a sentence, 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 a two-parameter read tool whose annotations cover safety and whose parameters are fully documented, the description supplies the missing piece: what the response contains. Minor gaps remain around response size or formatting, but nothing essential to invoking it correctly is absent.
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 100% and both parameters carry examples, patterns, and default behavior ('leave it out for the latest release'), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds nothing about name or version semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 names the resource (a block) and enumerates exactly what is returned: its files in full, the packages they require, and the install command. That content list clearly distinguishes it from sibling list_blocks, which only enumerates names. It lacks an explicit action verb, but the retrieval intent is unambiguous.
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?
There is no guidance on when to call this versus the obvious alternative, list_blocks, or when a specific version argument matters. The agent must infer the list-then-fetch workflow on its own. The 'full files' phrasing hints at a detail view, but no condition or exclusion is stated.
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.