Set the default .mblock file and optional target for a project, so subsequent block tools can operate without specifying path or target each time. Run once per project.
Save default project/target (project.yaml) so later block tools can omit path/target. Run once per project.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Path to .mblock file | |
| target | No | Default sprite/device, e.g. 'Sprite1' |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which the description does not contradict. It adds context that it saves to project.yaml and that it's a one-time setup. The 'Run once' recommendation is consistent with idempotency, so no contradiction.
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?
Two sentences with zero filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the usage instruction follows directly. No unnecessary words.
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 setup tool with two well-documented parameters and idempotency covered by annotations, the description fully explains what the tool does, why it's used, and how often to run it. Nothing essential 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% for both parameters, so the schema fully documents them. The description only refers to 'path/target' without adding extra semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 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 explicitly states the action (save default project/target) and the resource (project.yaml), and explains its purpose ('so later block tools can omit path/target'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like project-open or project-new.
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?
Provides a clear usage instruction ('Run once per project') and implies sequencing by stating it enables later block tools to omit path/target. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it, but the purpose is unambiguous enough for an agent to decide.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.