Mozaika

audit_code

When the user says a screen looks generic, cheap or off and you need to know WHY — paste the code and get numbers back. This is the one tool here that reads YOUR work instead of someone else's product.

Give it the component's CSS, or the JSX/HTML with its class attributes (Tailwind
utilities are read on the default scale), or both. It measures what the paste actually
contains — type ladder, spacing grid, radii, transition timing, container width — grades
each against hundreds of live-decoded real products, and returns findings worst-first,
each with the value, its percentile, the corpus median and the change to make.

It only ever reports what it could genuinely read, and lists what it could not: it sees
the source, not the rendered screen, so colour contrast, hover/focus states and
runtime-resolved variables are out of reach — for a public URL, get_score(domain) reads
those from the live DOM instead. Free and unmetered.

Args:
    code: the CSS and/or markup to audit. Paste the real thing, not a summary.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`code`	Yes

TDQS

A5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does an excellent job. It discloses that it only reads source code, not rendered screen, and lists specific limitations (color contrast, hover/focus states, runtime-resolved variables). It also explains it reports only measurable items and lists what it couldn't read, plus the output format (worst-first findings with value, percentile, median, change).

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is long but every sentence earns its place. It front-loads the use case, then methodically covers input, metrics, output, limitations, and alternatives. No fluff—all content is relevant and organized logically, from problem to solution to caveats.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has only one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It covers what the tool does, when to use it, what to provide, what it returns, what it cannot do, and an alternative tool for related cases. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema provides no description (0% coverage), so the description fully compensates. It explains the 'code' parameter precisely: 'the CSS and/or markup to audit. Paste the real thing, not a summary.' It also describes what to include (component's CSS, JSX/HTML with class attributes, or both) and how Tailwind utilities are read, making the parameter semantics crystal clear beyond the bare schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool audits the user's own code (CSS or JSX/HTML) and returns numeric metrics comparing against real products. It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings: 'This is the one tool here that reads YOUR work instead of someone else's product.' This is specific and differentiates from related tools like get_score.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly states when to use it: when a screen looks generic, cheap, or off and the user needs to know why. It also directs the user to an alternative for public URLs: 'for a public URL, get_score(domain) reads those from the live DOM instead.' This provides clear usage context and exclusion/alternative.

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

All Mozaika tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Disambiguation3/5

The compare_* / get_* / search_* family creates real overlap: compare_components, get_component, get_recipe, and search_screens(kind="component") can all answer similar component questions, and the drift family (get_design_drift, get_design_history, list_design_changes) requires careful reading to pick the right one. However, the detailed descriptions mostly draw clear lines between cross-product comparison, single-spec retrieval, and corpus-level search.

Naming Consistency4/5

The server mostly follows a clean verb_noun convention: get_*, compare_*, list_*, search_*, validate_design, generate_asset. The pattern is highly consistent, though a few names differ slightly in style (audit_code vs validate_design vs get_score), and pluralization varies in tools like compare_components and compare_sections.

Tool Count3/5

At 23 tools this is on the heavy side, and several calls overlap in scope enough to feel redundant. That said, the server's broad purpose suggests a design system reference plus audit platform, so the count is justifiable; it could be consolidated into a tighter 15-18 set.

Completeness4/5

The surface covers design system retrieval, component/section/recipe specs, screens and flows, search, audit/tools, icon assets, and drift/history of measured design tokens, leaving few cap gaps for the declared domain. Minor gaps remain around some metadata like direct screenshot banding by product, but no major dead-end workflow is apparent.

Resources

Need Help?