Browse available design systems for tokens. Filter by category (component-library, consumer, developer, fintech, framework, platform, productivity) or search by name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| search | No | Search by name or description | |
| category | No | Filter by category: component-library, consumer, developer, fintech, framework, platform, productivity. Saved user systems list under 'user'. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safe read behavior is covered. The description adds scope/category context but doesn't disclose additional behavior like pagination, result limit, or how saved user systems are handled beyond what the schema itself states.
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?
Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. Every phrase adds value: what the tool does, the token context, possible filters, and search capability.
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 simple, optional-filter read-only list tool, the description and annotations are sufficient to select and invoke it. A fully complete answer would mention result details/pagination, but for this tool's complexity and schema richness the absence is not a significant gap.
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%; both parameters are described clearly in the input schema, including all category values and the 'user' saved-system note. The description repeats filter modes but adds almost no new semantic information beyond the schema, so baseline score 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?
The description uses a specific verb ('Browse') and names the resource ('available design systems'), along with the subject area ('for tokens') and optional filter methods. This makes the tool's purpose clear and distinguishes it from sibling audit/get tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate from the similar list_content_systems.
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?
The sentence directly tells the user when to use the tool: to browse available design systems and refine by category or name. It gives clear context and filter options, though it lacks explicit 'when-not-to-use' commentary or named alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
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.
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.
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.
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.
