Retrieve the ordered block script attached to a hat block by its ID, making it possible to inspect the full chain of project logic from a starting point.
Follow the next-chain from a hat block and return the ordered script.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | ||
| hatId | Yes | ||
| target | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description is not required to repeat that. It adds the specific behavior of following the next-chain from a hat block, which is useful context, but it omits details like error handling, return format for missing chains, or whether it returns blocks or IDs. This is acceptable given the annotations cover safety, but the description adds limited extra behavioral depth.
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, focused sentence that conveys the essential purpose with no filler or redundancy. It is efficiently front-loaded with the action and resource, earning full marks for conciseness.
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 (one required) and no output schema, the description leaves significant gaps: it does not explain 'path' or 'target', nor describe the return structure (e.g., list of block IDs vs. block objects). An agent would struggle to correctly invoke this tool without additional information.
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 0%, so the description must explain all parameters. It only implicitly clarifies hatId (the 'hat block'), and gives no meaning for 'path' or 'target'. The agent has no way to infer what these strings represent or how they affect the call, making parameter usage opaque.
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 a specific action ('Follow the next-chain from a hat block') and outcome ('return the ordered script'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_block (which returns a single block) and add_script (which creates scripts) by focusing on traversal and ordering.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_block or app_put_script. The description does not mention conditions, prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid hatId), or cases where a different tool would be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.