AI Design Blueprint Doctrine

List Principles

principles.list

Read-onlyIdempotent

List Blueprint doctrine with stable slugs, titles, and clusters. The lens selects which of the three public doctrines: 'architecture' = the 10 agentic principles (default, the architect.validate rubric); 'surface' = the 8 experience-design laws (the design.validate rubric); 'spec' = the 8 spec-quality laws (the spec.validate rubric). Use this when you need the full inventory or want every entry in one cluster (pass cluster slug to filter). Prefer principles.search when the user describes a topic, failure mode, or keyword in natural language. Prefer principles.get when you already know the exact slug and need full detail.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`lens`	No	Which public doctrine: 'architecture' = the 10 agentic principles (default), 'surface' = the 8 experience-design laws, 'spec' = the 8 spec-quality laws.	architecture
`cluster`	No	Cluster slug to filter by (e.g. 'delegation', 'visibility', 'trust', 'orchestration'). Omit to return all principles.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. Description adds that results have stable slugs and the lens determines the doctrine, which is useful context beyond 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?

Three sentences, each serving a clear purpose: purpose, parameter explanation, usage guidelines. No redundant information; front-loaded with key action.

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?

Given two parameters with defaults and output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter semantics, and usage guidance. No missing information needed for correct tool invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, but description adds context: explains lens enum values with counts and links to other tools (architect.validate, etc.), and gives example cluster slugs. This enriches understanding beyond schema.

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 clearly states the tool lists Blueprint doctrine with stable slugs, titles, and clusters. It specifies the three doctrines (architecture, surface, spec) and distinguishes from siblings principles.search and principles.get.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool: when needing the full inventory or all entries in one cluster. Provides clear alternatives: prefer principles.search for natural language queries and principles.get when slug is known.

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

All AI Design Blueprint Doctrine tools Inspect

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

A4.6/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a clearly distinct purpose. For example, architect.validate vs architect.validate_consensus differ in single-shot vs consensus; handoffs.agency, handoffs.operator, and handoffs.partnership are separated by engagement type. No significant overlap.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tools follow a consistent dot-notation grouping (architect.*, clusters.*, examples.*, guides.*, handoffs.*, me.*, principles.*, signals.*, team.*) with predictable verbs (validate, list, get, search, add, etc.). Minor deviation: some underscore within names (e.g., me.add_evidence) but overall pattern holds.

Tool Count4/5

24 tools is on the higher side but justified given the broad domain spanning validation, certification, learning, handoffs, and feedback. Each tool has a clear role, and the count reflects the platform's comprehensive scope without feeling bloated.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers the full workflow (validate → consensus → certify), discovery (principles, clusters, examples, guides), personal progress (learning path, coaching, evidence), handoffs (support, partnership, agency), feedback, and team summaries. No obvious gaps for the stated purpose.

Resources

Need Help?