Creates the mBlock bridge files (.mext and setup JS) in a chosen folder, so you can drag the .mext into the app. Run once to prepare the bridge.
Write the mBlock-app bridge files (.mext + setup JS) to a folder so you can drag the .mext into the app. Run once.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| folder | No | Destination folder (default: <projects>/bridge) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the file types and the manual drag step, but does not disclose details like overwriting behavior or any side effects. Since annotations cover the safety profile, the description adds only modest behavioral context beyond them.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the action and includes the key file types and purpose. 'Run once' is a useful, non-redundant addition. There is no wasted wording.
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 simple tool with one optional parameter, no output schema, and annotations covering idempotency and non-destructiveness, the description provides sufficient information for an agent to decide when to call it and what it will do. The purpose and usage hint are clear, so nothing critical is missing.
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?
The sole parameter (folder) is fully described in the schema (100% coverage) with a default value. The tool description does not mention the parameter at all, so it adds no semantic value beyond the schema, matching the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.
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 clearly states the action (Write), the resource (mBlock-app bridge files), and the specific file types (.mext + setup JS). It also explains the purpose ('so you can drag the .mext into the app'), making it unambiguous and distinct from siblings like import_mext_catalog or app_put_script.
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?
The description provides a clear usage context ('Run once' and 'so you can drag the .mext into the app'), indicating it is a one-time setup step. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it lacks the exclusions that would merit a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.