Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Designers

by com.allthepossibles
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

CJK line breaking check

check_cjk_line_breaking
Read-only

Static review of line-breaking and typography settings where CJK or Thai text appears. Pass source as HTML with styles, or CSS plus sample text. Detects Han, kana, Hangul and Thai in the content, then flags word-break: break-all and keep-all used on the wrong script, missing lang (which selects glyph variants and break rules), inside CJK paragraphs, spaces between CJK characters, widths set in ch, line-height under 1.5, letter-spacing, italics, nowrap, and lines starting with closing punctuation. Mentions line-break strict and loose and phrase-aware breaking where relevant. Reads the pasted source only; nothing is rendered or run, stored or logged. Wrapping happens in the browser, so check in a real one with a native reader.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "source": "<source>"
    },
    "name": "check_cjk_line_breaking"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sourceYesHTML with styles, or CSS plus sample text.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: 'Reads the pasted source only; nothing is rendered or run, stored or logged' confirms and elaborates the read-only/non-persistent profile, and the caveat about browser-native wrapping discloses a reliability limit. The enumeration of what gets flagged also tells the agent what signal to expect back.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and scope, then input forms, then the limitation. The long middle list of checks is a run-on but each item is a concrete detectable condition rather than filler, so it mostly earns its place.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description implies a findings report ('flags…') without describing its shape or severity structure. Otherwise it is complete: input forms, detection scope, and a key caveat about real-browser verification are all present.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter is required, so the schema already documents it; the description's 'HTML with styles, or CSS plus sample text' merely restates the schema's own description. Baseline 3 applies for a one-param tool whose schema carries the semantics.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('static review of line-breaking and typography settings') plus a precise scope condition ('where CJK or Thai text appears'). It is clearly distinguishable from nearby siblings such as check_rtl_readiness or localisation_readiness by naming the exact scripts (Han, kana, Hangul, Thai) it detects.

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?

Gives concrete input shapes ('Pass source as HTML with styles, or CSS plus sample text') and states the boundary of what the check can conclude ('Wrapping happens in the browser, so check in a real one with a native reader'). It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives for adjacent concerns like RTL or general localisation, so no exclusion routing.

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

All Designers toolsInspect
Try in Browser
Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources