Designers

Error state skeleton

error_state_writer_template

Read-only

Assemble error message skeletons. Give problem (what happened, required), and optionally cause, fix (the next step), where (field or page), severity (blocking, recoverable, warning), dataSaved (yes if the user's work is safe), canRetry and contact. Returns three layouts (inline under a field, banner or toast, full-page with title, body and buttons) built from your wording with square-bracket placeholders where you gave nothing, plus flags: blame words (invalid, wrong, you failed), technical codes, cute openers, missing next step, fix not starting with a verb, length limits, missing way to reach a person on blocking errors. It does not write the copy for you.

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": {
      "problem": "<problem>"
    },
    "name": "error_state_writer_template"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`fix`	No	What the reader can do next
`cause`	No	Why, only if the reader can use it
`where`	No	Field or page
`contact`	No	Support channel, e.g. support
`problem`	Yes	What happened, in plain words
`canRetry`	No	yes if trying again can work
`severity`	No	blocking, recoverable or warning
`dataSaved`	No	yes if the user's work is safe

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedOct 24, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, but the description goes well beyond them: it discloses the exact return shape (three layouts with title/body/buttons), the placeholder behaviour for omitted inputs and the full set of lint flags emitted. That is real behavioural context an agent could not get from the structured fields.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause and every subsequent clause adds either parameter scope or return expectations. The parameter and flag enumerations are long but readable, with only minor overlap against the schema's own descriptions.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining returns and does so thoroughly for an 8-parameter tool. It stops short of describing the exact serialised result structure, but the layout names and flag list are enough to act on correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates each parameter with a short gloss ("fix (the next step)", "where (field or page)") and marks `problem` required, but adds no syntax, format or interaction detail beyond what the schema already declares.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

"Assemble error message skeletons" is a specific verb plus resource, and the closing "It does not write the copy for you" scopes it away from copy-writing siblings. It never names a concrete alternative (e.g. error_message_check or review_microcopy), so the sibling separation is implied rather than stated.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The only usage signal is a negative one – "It does not write the copy for you" – which hints at when not to use it. There is no explicit trigger for when to reach for this over error_message_check or review_microcopy, leaving the agent to infer from the purpose line.

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

All Designers tools Inspect

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

Need Help?