Create a new mBlock project file by selecting a template (blank, sprite_chase, mbot_forward, arduino_blink) and a destination path.
Create a new .mblock from a template (blank, sprite_chase, mbot_forward, arduino_blink).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Destination .mblock path | |
| template | No | blank |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already convey that this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false), not idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds the template behavior but does not disclose what happens if the destination path already exists, whether files are overwritten, or what a successful call returns. There is no contradiction with annotations.
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, compact sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then lists the meaningful template options. Every word earns its place with no 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 low-complexity, two-parameter creation tool, the description plus schema give the agent enough to invoke it correctly. There is no output schema and the description does not mention result/error behavior, but that is a minor gap given the simplicity of the operation.
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?
The schema already documents the path parameter as the destination .mblock path. The description repeats the template enum values and clarifies that they are templates, which is helpful, but it adds little semantic depth beyond what the enum and schema already offer. With 50% schema coverage, this is adequate but not compensatory.
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 the action ('Create'), the resource ('a new .mblock'), and the template options. It clearly distinguishes from read/project-management tools by emphasizing 'new,' but it does not explicitly differentiate from project-duplicate or other creation-like operations.
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 usage context is implied: use this tool when creating a new .mblock file. However, the description gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over sibling tools like project-duplicate, project-open, or project-import, and it does not mention exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.