list_componentsRetrieve all components in a specified Quasar UI block, including whether each is free or paid, to determine available source code.
List the Components of one Block, each with "access": "free" (source available to anyone) or "paid" (needs All Access or Blocks Pro).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| block | Yes | Block slug from list_blocks, e.g. pricing-sections |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint already declares this is a safe read, so the description doesn't need to. It does add genuine value by explaining the returned 'access' values ('free' = source available to anyone, 'paid' = needs All Access or Blocks Pro), which tells the agent about licensing constraints. It says nothing about result size or pagination.
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?
One compact sentence, front-loaded with the action, and every clause carries meaning (scope plus the access-value glossary). Slightly dense with quoted literals, but no wasted text.
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 single-param read tool with no output schema, the definition covers scope, required input source, and the meaning of the main returned field. Missing only volume/pagination behavior and a clear pointer to sibling alternatives.
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 coverage is 100% and the schema already documents the 'block' slug with an example. The description's phrase 'of one Block' reinforces the single-block scoping but adds no format or syntax beyond the schema; baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 and resource ('List the Components of one Block') and even names the returned field and its two values. It doesn't explicitly contrast with search_components or get_component, so an agent must infer that this is the per-block enumeration path.
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 implied by 'of one Block' and the schema note that the block slug comes from list_blocks, giving a reasonable workflow hint. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or mention of when search_components instead of this listing is preferable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.