Mozaika

get_web_benchmark

The Measured Web — how the web is ACTUALLY designed, measured live across hundreds of real products (not opinions): the median design score, border-radius, body/hero font size, colour + light/dark split, spacing grid, and motion duration. Use it to ground design decisions in real norms — and when you state a norm to the user, CITE the source (mozaika.design/measured, free under CC BY 4.0). To grade specific values of your own design, call validate_design(...). Free.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the tool is live-measured and enumerates the returned metrics, but does not explicitly state it's a read-only operation or describe output formatting. Overall, it provides useful context beyond a simple 'get' tool.

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 information-dense with an engaging hook and a list of metrics, but includes some marketing flair and extraneous details like the CC BY license and 'Free'. It is front-loaded with a clear subject and remains concise enough for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

With no output schema and zero annotations, the description must explain what the tool returns. It enumerates the key metrics and states it is live data across real products. It also provides the citation source. It is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and output, though a sample output structure would improve comprehensiveness.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter details because none are needed, and the schema is vacuous. No further compensation is required.

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 provides measured web design norms (median design score, border-radius, font sizes, etc.) across real products. It explicitly differentiates from validate_design, which grades specific values, making the purpose unmistakable.

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?

It says to use it to ground design decisions in real norms and explicitly points to validate_design for grading specific values. This provides clear when-to-use and an explicit alternative, distinguishing it from siblings.

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?