Add a blocklist entry to block an MCP server or exclude file patterns from indexing.
Add an entry to the blocklist. Can block MCP servers or exclude file patterns from indexing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | Yes | Type of blocklist entry | |
| reason | Yes | Reason for blocking/excluding | |
| pattern | No | Glob pattern (for file_pattern type) | |
| serverName | No | MCP server name (for server type) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals the core effect (blocking servers or excluding file patterns from indexing) but does not mention persistence, reversibility, duplicate handling, or any permissions required. The behavioral disclosure is partial.
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 short sentences deliver the purpose and the two behavioral modes with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and every word earns its place.
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?
The description plus fully documented schema provides enough information for an agent to call this tool correctly. It lacks guidance on subtle behavior like whether pattern or serverName is conditionally required, but those are inferable from the schema descriptions and enum.
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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds little beyond restating the two modes, which the 'type' enum and parameter descriptions already convey. This matches the baseline for full schema coverage.
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 uses a specific verb ('Add') with a clear resource ('blocklist') and explicitly distinguishes two entry types: blocking MCP servers and excluding file patterns from indexing. This clearly separates it from sibling tools like check_blocklist and update_knowledge_base.
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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: to block MCP servers or exclude file patterns from indexing. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the use cases are concrete enough to guide an agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.