Validates mBlock projects by checking block links, opcodes, and coordinates. Use before sharing or injecting to prevent errors.
Validate block links (parent/next), unknown opcodes, missing x/y. Run before sharing or injecting.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructiveness. The description adds valuable behavioral detail by listing exactly what is checked, which goes beyond the annotation metadata.
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 efficient sentences, each earning its place. The validation targets are front-loaded, and the usage timing is given immediately after. No filler or repetition.
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 read-only validation tool with strong annotations covering safety, the description covers what is validated and when to run it. It doesn't describe the return format or how results are reported, but that is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.
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 only parameter, 'path', has no schema description and is not mentioned in the tool description at all. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description should compensate, but it doesn't clarify how the path is used or what it should point to.
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 ('Validate') with concrete targets: block links (parent/next), unknown opcodes, and missing x/y. This makes the tool's purpose immediately distinguishable from more general sibling tools like 'doctor'.
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 explicit timing guidance: 'Run before sharing or injecting.' It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the intended usage context is clear 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.