list_blocksRetrieve all QuasarUI Blocks with tags, component counts, free component totals, and page URLs to quickly assess and select available UI component groups.
List every QuasarUI Block (a group of related Components, e.g. pricing-sections) with its tags, how many Components it has, how many are Free, and its page URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, so the description's added value is the payload shape: tags, component count, free-tier count, and page URL are disclosed. The word 'every' also signals an unpaginated full enumeration, which is genuinely useful behavioral context.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; every clause (definition, returned fields) earns its place and there is no redundant restatement of the title.
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?
With no parameters, no output schema, and read-only annotations, the description carries exactly the missing information — what a Block is and what fields come back. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is absent.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate — baseline 4 applies. No misleading hints about filtering or paging parameters are introduced.
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?
States a specific verb (List) and resource (QuasarUI Block), and defines the domain term inline as 'a group of related Components, e.g. pricing-sections'. That parenthetical implicitly separates it from the sibling list_components, so an agent can choose between them without opening a schema.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent infers this is the enumeration tool for blocks, but the description never states when to prefer it over search_components or list_components, nor any exclusions. For a no-param list tool the inference is easy, which keeps this above a 2.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.