Package an mBlock project with its backup and profile into a ZIP file for easy sharing or backup.
Zip a project (.mblock + .bak + profile) for sharing or backup.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Path to .mblock file | |
| output | No | Output .zip path. Defaults to <project>.zip |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish that the tool is non-read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral value by specifying exactly which project files get bundled into the archive. There is no contradiction with the annotations, and the operation's non-destructive nature is consistent with the description.
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 sentence that front-loads the action verb, names the resource, lists the archive contents, and states the purpose. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.
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 two-parameter archive tool with complete schema coverage and safety-relevant annotations, the description is sufficient for correct invocation. Path requirements, optional output default, and the tool's safety profile are all covered by the schema and annotations, so no essential information 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters (path and output) already documented clearly. The description itself does not add parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 ('Zip'), a concrete resource (a project), enumerates the bundled files (.mblock, .bak, profile), and states the purpose (sharing/backup). This makes it immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like project-list, project-validate, or export_code, even without naming them.
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 phrase 'for sharing or backup' provides clear intended-use context. It does not explicitly list alternative tools or say when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5, but the context is sufficiently clear for an agent to know when this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.