Relocate a selected top-level block to specific x/y coordinates within an mBlock project, enabling precise positioning and layout adjustments.
Move a top-level block to x/y.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x | Yes | ||
| y | Yes | ||
| path | No | ||
| target | No | ||
| blockId | Yes | ||
| confirm | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false (so mutation) and destructiveHint=false (non-destructive), which the description correctly aligns with (it implies a move, not a delete). The description adds the 'top-level' constraintiative context, which is valuable)Skip providing more details on what happens to the block (e.g., whether it snaps to grid) or if it requires the block to be unattached.
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?
One short sentence with no fluffholidays. It is front-loaded with the action. However, it is possibly too terse given the number of undocumented parameters.
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?
The tool has six parameters, three required, and no output schema, so the description needs to cover more. It does not explain the role of 'path', 'target', 'confirm', or any side effects. For a mutation tool, this is incomplete.
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 the parameters, but it only mentions 'x/y' which are self-explanatory. The 'path', 'target', and 'confirm' parameters are not described anywhere, and without schema descriptions, the agent cannot infer their purpose. This is a significant gap.
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 clear action ('Move a top-level block') and a specific operation (to x/y coordinates). It is distinct enough from siblings like 'set_block_field' or 'delete_block', though it doesn't name any sibling explicitly.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention if this is for visual positioning only or if it also updates the underlying script, and doesn't explain how it differs from 'set_block_field' or other mutation tools. The 'top-level block' qualifier hints at a constraint, but there is no clear context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.