List all available @marmoui/ui components with names, descriptions, categories, and prop counts. Use to discover what exists. Prefer search_components when you already know the use case (form, table, dialog, etc.).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | No | Filter by status (e.g., "stable", "beta") | |
| category | No | Filter by category (e.g., "Components", "Layout") |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It transparently states that it lists all components and specifies the returned fields, implying a read-only operation. It doesn't disclose pagination or rate limits, but for a simple listing tool this is sufficient.
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?
Two sentences, no filler. First sentence states purpose and output, second provides usage guidance. Every word earns its place.
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?
For a read-only listing tool with two optional filters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, return contents, and usage context. It also flags the sibling alternative. Complete for its complexity.
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 100% for both parameters (status and category) with descriptions. The tool description doesn't add further parameter-level detail, so it meets the baseline for schema-backed parameter semantics.
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?
The description uses a specific verb 'List' and identifies the resource '@marmoui/ui components' with output details (names, descriptions, categories, prop counts). It also distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning when to prefer search_components.
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?
Explicitly states 'Use to discover what exists' and 'Prefer search_components when you already know the use case', providing clear usage context and an explicit alternative.
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.
Most tools have distinct purposes, but there is some overlap between review_generated_code and validate_component_usage, and between list_components and search_components. However, descriptions clearly differentiate their intended use cases, reducing ambiguity.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case (e.g., get_component_info, generate_component, review_generated_code). The naming is predictable and clearly indicates the action.
14 tools is well-scoped for a UI design system assistant. It covers component discovery, detailed info, design guidelines, theme, code generation and validation, and prototype management without being overwhelming.
The tool set covers the full workflow: discover components, get patterns, get design guidelines, generate and validate code, get tenant theme, deploy prototypes and collect feedback. No obvious gaps for the intended usage scenario.