Retrieve the full JSON definition and catalog details for a specific block by its ID, enabling inspection and validation of block properties in mBlock projects.
Full JSON of one block + its catalog definition.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | ||
| target | No | ||
| blockId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds that the result includes the block's full JSON plus its catalog definition, which provides useful return-content context without contradicting the annotations.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the core meaning, and the return payload scope is conveyed efficiently.
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 tool with three parameters, no output schema, and zero parameter descriptions, this description is too thin to be fully actionable. Annotations cover safety, but the agent still lacks understanding of path/target and how they affect the retrieved block.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage and no parameter descriptions in the schema, the description needed to explain the parameters. It only implicitly connects 'one block' to blockId, leaving path and target completely unexplained, so the agent gets minimal help invoking the tool correctly.
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 states a specific action (get), a resource (block), and the scope (one block), making the core purpose clear. It does not explicitly name or contrast sibling tools, but 'one block' helps distinguish it from list_blocks and other block-related operations.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_blocks or get_script. The description implies it is for retrieving a single block's full data, but it does not state conditions, exclusions, or preferred alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.