Skip to main content
Glama

Raven

by ai.ravenmcp

audit_swiftui

Read-onlyIdempotent

Audit SwiftUI source against Apple's Human Interface Guidelines. Flags hardcoded .font(.system(size:)) below ~13pt and tiny semantic fonts (.caption/.caption2), hardcoded Color(red:green:blue:)/hex instead of asset-catalog or semantic system colors, an empty/undefined AccentColor, interactive frames below 44×44pt, and ad-hoc spacing off the 4/8-pt grid. Rewards semantic Dynamic Type fonts, semantic system colors, SF Symbols, and flexible frames. iOS-native checks only — no web/CSS rules. Returns pass/fail per check with fix instructions. Taste-profile bindings are not available on the hosted (remote) endpoint (per-user state is a later phase). Omit 'project'/'profile' to run the stateless SwiftUI audit.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sourceYesSwiftUI source — a single file/view as a string, or an array of file contents. Concatenated before analysis.
strictNoStrict mode — also count warnings as failures for grading. Default: false
profileNoTaste profile owning the binding. Omit to search all stored profiles for one bound to the project.
projectNoProject identifier — resolves a saved taste surface binding (see bind_taste_surface). When the binding carries design_notes, each note is verified against the source (animation/material/haptic/font APIs) and returned in note_assessments; missing notes count toward the grade.
accent_color_contentsNoOptional raw Contents.json of AccentColor.colorset. When provided, the tool verifies AccentColor actually defines color components (flags an empty/undefined accent color as an error).

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: what the tool flags and rewards, that it returns pass/fail with fix instructions, and that taste-profile bindings are unavailable on the hosted endpoint. No contradiction with 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 dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, specific checks, rewards, scope exclusion, return format, and endpoint limitation. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then provides necessary detail without filler.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the tool's complexity, no output schema, and rich input schema, the description covers the essential context: what is checked, what is rewarded, return format, platform scope, and remote-endpoint limitations. It could be slightly more explicit about strict-mode grading, but the schema already covers that parameter.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters thoroughly. The description adds some useful context about the stateless mode and hosted-endpoint limitation, but it does not significantly expand on parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Audit SwiftUI source against Apple's Human Interface Guidelines.' It then enumerates concrete checks (fonts, colors, accent color, tap targets, spacing) and explicitly scopes itself to iOS-native SwiftUI, distinguishing it from the many sibling audit tools.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides clear usage context: it is for SwiftUI/iOS only, explicitly excludes web/CSS rules, and explains when to omit 'project'/'profile' to run the stateless audit. It does not name specific sibling alternatives, but the platform/framework scoping is enough to guide selection.

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

All Raven toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes (audit_* vs get_* vs list_* vs generate_* vs score_*), but there is notable overlap among audit_page, audit_layout, score_page, and audit_url (all audit rendered HTML, with audit_page and score_page explicitly sharing checks; audit_screen and audit_ios_screen are aliases). The get_* family (get_pattern vs get_content_pattern vs get_service_pattern, get_principles vs get_brand_principles vs get_content_principles) have overlapping boundaries that may cause misselection.

Naming Consistency4/5

Names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (audit_*, get_*, list_*, generate_*, score_*, compose_*, suggest_*, search_*), which is predictable and readable. Minor deviations exist: 'evaluate_design' uses evaluate_ instead of audit_/score_, and 'process' isn't present but 'compose_system' uses compose_ instead of generate_/get_. Overall the convention is strong and consistent.

Tool Count2/5

45 tools is far beyond the typical well-scoped server (3-15 tools) and even beyond the 'heavy' 25+ threshold. The server appears to be an all-in-one design/UX knowledge base and auditing suite, but the sheer count makes discovery and selection overwhelming, and many tools (e.g., multiple audit_* variants for mobile platforms) could be consolidated.

Completeness3/5

The server covers a wide domain: audits for web/mobile/RN/SwiftUI, design tokens, UX principles, content systems, business strategy, creative scoring, and service design. However, there are gaps: no tool for creating or editing design systems (only get/generate), no update/delete operations anywhere (all read-only or audit-only), and the creative side has list/score but no generation tool. The set feels broad but shallow in lifecycle coverage.

Resources