headrush-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

list_block_presets

Read-only

Lists factory and user presets for a HeadRush block, so you can inspect available preset options before editing or assigning them.

Instructions

List a block's factory and user presets.

Tool call template

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": {
      "block": "<block>"
    },
    "name": "list_block_presets"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`block`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 9, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real scope information by saying both factory and user presets are returned, but says nothing about behavior for an unknown or non-existent block, nor about result ordering or size.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Compact, though the brevity comes at the cost of the missing identifier detail rather than being purely efficient.

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

Completeness2/5

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

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, but for a tool whose only parameter is completely undocumented, the description leaves the identifier format unresolved. That gap is the main thing an agent could get wrong here.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden, yet it only restates that a block is involved. It never clarifies whether 'block' expects a display name, an ID, or a slot reference — the single piece of information an agent needs to call this correctly.

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?

Specific verb ('List') plus resource ('block's factory and user presets'), which immediately distinguishes it from siblings like list_blocks or get_block that return block metadata rather than presets. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to call this versus get_block, describe_block, or list_blocks, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer from the name alone that this returns presets rather than block definitions.

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