Mozaika

compare_recipes

See how the BEST products each build the same hard pattern — one call, cross-product. Use before building any complex pattern: compare_recipes("Command Palette") returns a ranked panel (one per product), each entry carrying the at-a-glance layer you pick a reference by — overlay radius, whether it ships a shadow, backdrop filter, the open-motion string and the names of the captured states — so you see that Vercel animates the open where Supabase blurs the backdrop, instead of guessing at the invisible motion/state layer. This is the comparison view; call get_recipe(site, recipe_type) on the one you choose for its full measured anatomy tree, easings, state captures and video.

Args:
    recipe_type: e.g. "Command Palette", "Pricing Table", "Toast", "Data Table", "Multi-step Form".
    industry: optional filter, e.g. "Dev Tools", "Fintech".
    scheme: optional "dark" or "light" (matches the recipe's measured overlay background).
    limit: panel size (1-12, default 8).
Returns available recipe types if the requested one has no matches.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No
`scheme`	No
`industry`	No
`recipe_type`	Yes

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return structure in detail (ranked panel, per-entry fields like overlay radius, shadow, backdrop filter, open-motion string, state names) and the fallback behavior ('Returns available recipe types if the requested one has no matches'). It does not explicitly state read-only semantics, but the nature of the tool makes that implicit.

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?

The description is relatively long but well-structured, front-loaded with a high-level summary followed by parameter details and return behavior. The illustrative Vercel/Supabase example helps convey value but is not strictly necessary; still, every sentence serves a purpose in explaining what the tool does and returns.

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?

Given the 4-parameter complexity, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is comprehensive. It explains the return object's fields and the fallback case. It does not specify the ranking criteria, but that is a minor omission given the overall completeness.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description fully compensates. The Args block explains every parameter with examples ('Command Palette', 'Dev Tools', 'dark'/'light') and constraints ('limit: panel size (1-12, default 8)'). It also adds semantic context, such as scheme meaning 'matches the recipe's measured overlay background.'

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's purpose: 'See how the BEST products each build the same hard pattern — one call, cross-product.' It explicitly differentiates from siblings by saying 'This is the comparison view; call get_recipe on the one you choose,' distinguishing it from get_recipe and other comparison tools.

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?

Provides explicit usage direction: 'Use before building any complex pattern.' It also names the alternative tool: 'call get_recipe(site, recipe_type) on the one you choose for its full measured anatomy tree,' giving clear when-to-use and when-to-use-other guidance.

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?