Return the CLI command that adds Frontic UI items to a project.
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": {
"items": "<items>"
},
"name": "get_add_command"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| items | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Return' hints that the tool generates a command string rather than executing it, but it never confirms that no mutation or shell execution occurs, nor does it mention any side effects or output format.
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?
A single well-formed sentence with the outcome front-loaded and no filler, but so terse that it omits information a caller needs.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented required parameter, the definition leaves key questions open: what the returned command looks like, where it should be run, and what valid item values are. It is under-specified for even a simple generator tool.
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 0% and there is one required array parameter, yet the description says nothing about what an 'item' is, whether entries are names, slugs, or URLs, or how the array affects the emitted command. It only echoes the plural noun from the tool's purpose.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: it returns a CLI command that adds Frontic UI items to a project. The purpose is clear and distinct from siblings like search_registry_items or get_item_docs, though the description never explicitly contrasts itself with them.
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?
No guidance on when to call this versus get_item_docs, get_item_examples, or search_registry_items, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer that this is used when a setup/install command is needed.
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.