Skip to main content
Glama

Rams

by ai.rams.worker
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Rams quick check

quick_review

Fast design and accessibility check of UI code (React, Vue, Svelte, HTML, CSS, SwiftUI). Returns the top issues with severity, category and file:line in about 10 seconds. Call it when the user pastes or uploads UI code, asks whether a design is good or accessible, or when you just wrote or changed a component, page or view. You do not need to ask first. Pass each file with its real path, or for pasted code a path that fits it (pasted/Card.tsx, pasted/index.html) and the full code. Five quick checks cost one review credit (two on the free plan). It reads code only, not screenshots or URLs. It returns no score and no patch: fix the issues yourself. For a score or patches, use review_files.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
viaNoSet to "rules" when this call is made because of a standing instruction in a rules file (e.g. CLAUDE.md). Omit when a person asked for the review.
filesYesThe UI code, one entry per file (up to 20): the real path, or for pasted code a path that fits it (pasted/Card.tsx), and the full code
contextNoShort label, e.g. the component or feature name

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / files / description
      Previous value: -"The UI files you just changed"New value: +"The UI code, one entry per file (up to 20): the real path, or for pasted code a path that fits it (pasted/Card.tsx), and the full code"
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / via
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Set to \"rules\" when this call is made because of a standing instruction in a rules file (e.g. CLAUDE.md). Omit when a person asked for the review.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  3. Added

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only declare shallow hints (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false); the description adds the details an agent actually needs: ~10s latency, credit cost (one per five checks, two on free plan), code-only input with no screenshot/URL support, and the fact that no score or patch is returned. This is well beyond what the structured fields convey.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Dense but front-loaded: framework list and output shape come first, then triggers, then constraints and credit cost. Slightly redundant in restating the path-for-pasted-code rule that the schema already carries, but nearly every sentence adds actionable information.

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?

For a read/compute tool with no output schema, the description covers return shape (top issues with severity, category, file:line), latency, cost, input limits, and sibling routing. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description earns extra by explaining how to populate 'path' for pasted code (pasted/Card.tsx, pasted/index.html) and that full code must be supplied, which the schema does not spell out. The maxItems=20 cap is left to the schema, so it is not a full 5.

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?

Names a specific verb (design and accessibility check) and resource (UI code), enumerating supported frameworks so scope is unambiguous. It explicitly distinguishes itself from review_files ('returns no score and no patch') and rules out screenshots/URLs, so an agent can separate it from review_url and review_files without opening schemas.

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?

Gives concrete trigger conditions ('when the user pastes or uploads UI code', 'asks whether a design is good or accessible', 'when you just wrote or changed a component'), removes a common hesitation ('You do not need to ask first'), and names the alternative for other needs ('For a score or patches, use review_files'). When-to-use, when-not, and alternatives are all present.

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

All Rams toolsInspect
Try in Browser
Shareable, User-Owned Context BackendPeople, applications, and agents read, write, and coordinate together in one context lake. Reach it over MCP, a CLI, a Python SDK, or REST.fulcradynamics.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources