block_personBlock the other person in a conversation: ends the friendship and closes the chat, and they aren't told. Can't be undone from here: ask first, then confirm: true.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| confirm | No | true once the person confirmed they want to block. Example: true | |
| conversationId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / $schemaRemoved value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falseOutput schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
- "additionalProperties": false,
- "properties": {
- "note": {
- "type": "string"
- },
- "ok": {
- "type": "boolean"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "ok",
- "note"
- ],
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullInput schema / properties / confirmAdded value: +{
+ "description": "true once the person confirmed they want to block. Example: true",
+ "type": "boolean"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations declare a destructive, non-idempotent-safe mutation, and the description goes well beyond that: it discloses the friendship termination, the chat closure, the fact the other person is not notified, and that the action is irreversible from this tool. That is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs before a destructive call.
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 compact sentences, with the consequences front-loaded and the safety prerequisite (ask first, then confirm) at the end where it is most actionable. No filler.
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 destructive mutation with no output schema, it covers consequences, irreversibility, and the confirmation protocol, which is nearly everything needed. It leaves open what a successful or failed call returns and whether conversationId accepts non-friend conversations.
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 coverage is 50%: confirm is documented in the schema, and the description reinforces it by framing it as the post-ask confirmation step. conversationId is undocumented in both places, though "in a conversation" implies its meaning. This adds some value but does not fully compensate for the coverage gap.
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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Block the other person in a conversation") plus the concrete effects (ends the friendship, closes the chat). It is clearly distinct from siblings such as flag_conversation or pling_friend, though it never names an alternative to route against.
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 provides explicit procedural guidance: ask the person first, then pass confirm: true. It does not state when to prefer this over related tools like flag_conversation, so the when-to-use context is implicit rather than complete.
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.