Check if a server name or file pattern is blocked. Use this to verify whether an item appears on the removal blocklist before taking action.
Check if a server or file pattern is blocked.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pattern | No | File pattern to check | |
| serverName | No | Server name to check |
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 must fully disclose behavior, but it only says 'check if ... blocked.' It does not state the return value, whether the operation is read-only, or how it behaves with both parameters provided. This is a minimal disclosure with no side-effect or result semantics.
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?
A single succinct sentence that front-loads the operation and its target. No filler or redundant information.
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 two optional parameters and no output schema, the description omits critical context: expected return type, behavior when both parameters are supplied, and any prerequisites. The agent must guess these details, making the definition incomplete.
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 parameters are already documented in the schema. The description's 'server or file pattern' loosely maps to the properties but adds no new meaning about how the parameters interact or whether one or both are expected.
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 ('check') and resource ('blocklist') with the specific scope of server names and file patterns. It is distinguishable from the sibling 'add_blocklist_entry' by the opposite verb, though it does not explicitly name that alternative.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to call add_blocklist_entry instead. The description only states what it does, leaving usage context to be inferred from the tool name and siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.