AI Design Blueprint

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 readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context about lens selection (three doctrines), default behavior (architecture), and the ability to filter by cluster, going beyond structured fields. It doesn't contradict 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?

Four sentences, no filler. Front-loaded with the core purpose, then concise details on lens and guidance on alternatives. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple list tool with rich annotations, output schema, and sibling alternatives, the description fully covers purpose, usage, parameter semantics, and alternatives. No significant gaps.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description enriches both parameters: explains the lens enum values and maps them to validator rubrics (architect.validate, design.validate, spec.validate), and provides example cluster slugs, thereby adding meaning beyond the 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 'List Blueprint doctrine with stable slugs, titles, and clusters' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly naming principles.search and principles.get and describing when each should be used instead.

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?

Provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use this when you need the full inventory or want every entry in one cluster' and explicitly recommends alternatives: 'Prefer principles.search when...' and 'Prefer principles.get when...'.

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 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

A4.4/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose within its domain: the validators are differentiated by lens (architect/design/spec), content tools are split by entity (principles/clusters/guides/examples/assets) with list/get/search variants, and even the me.* and handoffs.* tools have non-overlapping functions. The only near-overlap (architect.validate vs architect.validate_consensus) is explicitly disambiguated by the consensus variant's description.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names consistently use a domain prefix (architect., principles., me., etc.) and snake_case throughout. While most are action-oriented (validate, list, get, search, add, await, report, summarize), some me.* and handoffs.* names are noun phrases (me.learning_path, handoffs.agency) that don't signal the action as clearly, creating minor deviation from a pure verb_noun or action pattern.

Tool Count3/5

At 29 tools, the set is heavy but justified by the server's broad multi-domain scope (doctrine, validation, learning, support, and team analytics). Each tool has a distinct role, but the number exceeds the typical well-scoped range, and some content types (e.g., examples) could have been consolidated without losing function.

Completeness4/5

The server covers its apparent domains thoroughly: doctrine content has list/get/search for most entity types, validation covers architecture/design/spec with consensus and certification, and user learning/support have appropriate tools. Minor gaps exist—e.g., examples have no list-all endpoint, and session management is web-only—but none are blocking for core workflows.

Resources

Need Help?