Skip to main content
Glama

Mozaika

by design.mozaika

get_score

Design Score: a 0-100 design audit MEASURED from the site's live DOM (real WCAG contrast pairs, detected type ladder, spacing grid, forced hover states, motion) — scored against the whole measured-web corpus ("top N% of M systems"). Free to read. Use it to audit the site YOU are building or any competitor: returns dimension scores (typography/color/spacing/motion), UI+UX headline scores, plain-language verdicts, the raw measured evidence chips, and a prioritized fix list — each fix anchored to an evidence index (agent-ready: why + how_to you can apply directly to the codebase). Not scored yet (or refresh=true)? A scan starts (~60-90s) using your account email — call get_score again shortly. Full fix payload requires Pro/Lifetime; everyone gets scores, evidence, verdicts and one complete sample fix.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
siteYes
refreshNo

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden of disclosure. It reveals scan duration (60-90s), dependency on account email, need to call again for results, and free vs Pro/Lifetime access limits. This is comprehensive and honest about the tool's behavior.

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 dense but well-organized, starting with a bold summary and expanding into details about outputs, scan process, and access tiers. Every sentence adds value, though slightly longer than minimal; the structure is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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's complexity (async scan, paywall, rich output), the description covers all essential aspects: what it returns (scores, evidence, verdicts, fixes), how to handle un-scored sites, account requirements, and limitations. Without an output schema, this description provides a complete mental model for the agent.

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

Parameters4/5

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 clarifies that 'refresh=true' triggers a new scan, and the 'site' parameter is implicit as the URL to audit. While 'site' format isn't explicitly stated, the tool's purpose makes it obvious; the refresh behavior is explicitly documented.

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: a 0-100 design audit measured from the site's live DOM, with specific metrics (WCAG contrast, type ladder, spacing, motion). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (get_component, compare_*) by focusing on scoring/auditing rather than retrieval or comparison.

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?

Explicitly instructs when to use: 'audit the site YOU are building or any competitor.' It also explains the refresh behavior and first-time scan process. While it doesn't name alternative tools, the use case is clearly scoped.

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

All Mozaika toolsInspect
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