Screenrove

Check the user's UI against real references

check_my_ui

Read-only

Compare the user's UI structure against Screenrove's catalog of real products. Describe what the user has (screen type, sections, flow steps, plan count) and get a report showing the closest real-world references with factual comparisons.

Use only the fields the user provides; leave out personal names, pricing, or customer data. The report includes step counts, section counts, observed actions, and factual comparisons— not recommendations.

Use this when the user wants to validate their UI against real products, understand if their flow has more or fewer steps than competitors, or see how similar screens are structured.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`kind`	No	Only compare with this kind of capture.
`limit`	No	How many references to return, 1 to 5.
`product`	No	Only compare with this product id.
`flowType`	No	What the flow does, so step counts are only compared with flows of the same kind. Inferred from screenType when omitted.
`sections`	No	Page sections top to bottom, e.g. ["Hero", "Plan cards", "FAQ"].
`flowSteps`	No	For a multi-screen flow, each step's title in order, e.g. ["Sign up", "Verify email", "Create workspace"].
`planCount`	No	For pricing screens, how many plans are shown.
`screenType`	No	What kind of screen it is.
`description`	Yes	One or two sentences on what the screen is for and how it is laid out, e.g. "Pricing page with three plan cards, a monthly/yearly toggle and a feature table".
`primaryAction`	No	The main button or action, e.g. "Start free trial".

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`next`	No
`report`	No	Markdown summary of the comparison.
`references`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 30, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "next": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "references": {
+      "items": {
+        "properties": {
+          "facts": {
+            "items": {
+              "type": "string"
+            },
+            "type": "array"
+          },
+          "id": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "imageUrl": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "kind": {
+            "description": "flow is an onboarding step, marketing a public web page, product an in-app screen.",
+            "enum": [
+              "flow",
+              "marketing",
+              "product"
+            ],
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "notes": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "previewUrl": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "product": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "productName": {
+            "description": "Present on pick options.",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "screenType": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "title": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "why": {
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "report": {
+      "description": "Markdown summary of the comparison.",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedSep 29, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish the read-only, non-destructive, closed-world profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: it enforces a privacy constraint ('use only the fields the user provides; leave out personal names, pricing, or customer data') and sets an output boundary ('factual comparisons—not recommendations').

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?

Three short paragraphs, front-loaded with the core action, then the privacy constraint, then usage triggers. Every sentence carries information, though the usage paragraph slightly overlaps the opening.

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?

For a 10-parameter analysis tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, input-discipline, output boundaries, and usage triggers adequately. Return content need not be explained given the output schema, though the missing sibling differentiation is a residual gap.

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 description coverage is 100% and three parameters carry enums, so the schema already documents every argument's meaning and constraints. The description's parenthetical list (screen type, sections, flow steps, plan count) merely restates fields the schema defines in more detail, adding no syntax or format guidance beyond it.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: compare the user's UI structure against Screenrove's catalog of real products and return a report of closest references. Clear enough to act on, though it never explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling 'compare_screens', which sounds closely related.

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 three concrete when-to-use triggers (validate UI against real products, compare flow step counts to competitors, see how similar screens are structured). No when-not guidance and no mention of when to prefer compare_screens or pick_reference instead.

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

All Screenrove tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Shareable, User-Owned Context BackendPeople, applications, and agents read, write, and coordinate together in one context lake. Reach it over MCP, a CLI, a Python SDK, or REST.fulcradynamics.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?