get_componentEverything needed to write a correct call site for one component: props with types, defaults and value domains, platform applicability, dependencies, and the runtime rules that apply to it. The rules matter as much as the props: correct props that break a rule still render a blank screen.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | e.g. "button" |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses what the response contains (props with types/defaults/values, platform applicability, dependencies, runtime rules) and emphasizes the real consequence of violating rules. This adds value beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, though exact output format is not specified.
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 focused sentences with no filler. The first sentence enumerates the content categories, and the second adds a high-value warning about rules causing a blank screen. Everything 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 single-parameter, read-only retrieval with no output schema, the description names the major return categories and frames the tool's purpose well. It omits a precise return contract or slug-format details, but the stated content and example are sufficient for correct invocation.
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 description coverage is 100%, with the single slug parameter documented and given an example. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly identifies the tool as returning everything needed to write a correct call site for one component, including props, platform applicability, dependencies, and runtime rules. It is distinct from list_components and install_component, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.
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?
The description gives clear usage context: use this when you need full details to write a correct call site for a single component, and it warns that runtime rules matter. It does not mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the 'one component' framing implies the boundary.
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.