get_theme_tokensThe Wingo UI CSS variables (light and dark) and their Tailwind mappings, as CSS to paste into the global stylesheet or as JSON.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "get_theme_tokens"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| format | No | css |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish this as a safe, read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by disclosing the content type (light and dark CSS variables, Tailwind mappings) and that output can be CSS or JSON, which helps the agent understand what will be returned.
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?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the resource, scope, and format options efficiently.
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 simple one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned and the format choices. It could be slightly stronger with explicit usage guidance or sibling-tool routing, but the core information is present.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does: the single 'format' parameter is mirrored by the description's 'as CSS ... or as JSON' and the default CSS use case is explained via the global stylesheet context.
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 states the specific resource: Wingo UI CSS variables (light and dark) and their Tailwind mappings, plus the two output formats. It clearly identifies what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like get_design_rules or get_component.
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?
Usage is implied by saying the CSS is 'to paste into the global stylesheet' and that JSON is an alternative format. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use guidance, and no routing to sibling tools for related design-system needs.
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.