blocks-translation-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

List Blocks modules

list_modules

Resolve any module name to its ModuleId by retrieving all available modules from the Blocks tenant. Provides the required ID for search_keys and build_upload_entries.

Instructions

Lists modules available in the configured Blocks tenant (name + id). Use this to resolve a module name (e.g. "app-user-management", "root", "generic-app") to the ModuleId needed by search_keys and build_upload_entries.

Tool call template

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_modules"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 5, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the output format and tenant context, but does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, any authorization requirements, rate limits, or side effects. For a simple listing tool, this coverage is insufficient without annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the action and immediately adds practical usage context. Every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 params, no output schema), the description is complete: it states what is returned, examples of module names, and how the output is used by other tools. No additional context is needed for an agent to invoke it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description adds value by clarifying the output structure (name + id) and usage, even though no parameter explanation is needed.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description uses a specific verb 'Lists' and clearly identifies the resource ('modules available in the configured Blocks tenant'), specifying the output as name + id. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by noting the purpose of resolving module names to ModuleIds needed by other tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this to resolve a module name...to the ModuleId needed by search_keys and build_upload_entries.' This provides a clear use case and references specific downstream sibling tools, offering practical guidance beyond generic context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server