Retrieve up to 200 block IDs and their valid properties from the live game.
Find up to 200 block IDs and their valid properties from the live game.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "list_blocks"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals a 200-item limit and that data comes from the live game, but it does not explain how the query parameter affects behavior, what 'valid properties' means, or how results are ordered or returned.
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 concise sentence that front-loads the core action and result. It avoids redundancy, though it is somewhat terse and could carry more useful detail without becoming verbose.
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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented parameter, the description is too sparse. Missing details include the purpose of 'query', the structure of returned properties, whether the list is paginated, and how this relates to sibling tools like inspect_blocks.
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 has one optional 'query' parameter with no description and 0% schema description coverage. The tool description does not mention the query parameter at all, leaving the agent without any hint about how to use it or what values are valid.
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 verb 'Find' and the resource 'block IDs and their valid properties', with a specific scope ('up to 200') and source ('from the live game'). It is easy to understand what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool inspect_blocks.
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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not say when to use list_blocks instead of alternatives like inspect_blocks or list_captures, nor does it mention any conditions or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.