List blocks from mBlock projects by target, category, or pagination to inspect available programming blocks.
List blocks on a target (paginated).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| target | No | ||
| category | No | Filter e.g. motion, control, mBot, CyberPi, Arduino |
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 covered. The description adds one behavioral trait—pagination—which is useful, but it does not disclose default limit/offset behavior, ordering, or what happens when required parameters are omitted.
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: the action, the scope, and the pagination behavior. It is as concise as possible while carrying meaningful information.
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 5 parameters, no output schema, and sparse schema descriptions, this description is too thin. It does not explain return values, parameter relationships, or how to specify the target. The pagination mention helps, but the agent would still need to inspect schema and infer several details to call the tool correctly.
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 only 20% (only 'category' is documented), and the description does not compensate. It mentions 'on a target' and 'paginated', giving some hint about target and pagination, but it does not explain the roles of 'path' and 'target', nor the semantics of limit and offset.
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 and resource: 'List blocks' and scopes it to 'a target'. It distinguishes the tool from get_block (list vs. single fetch) and is more specific than a bare tautology. However, it does not clarify what a 'block' is in this domain, leaving some ambiguity.
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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_block or list_opcodes. It implies a list-all use case, but does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or when a sibling 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.