Slate is a shadcn-inspired ui kit for Laravel
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Average 3.7/5 across 5 of 6 tools scored. Lowest: 3/5.
Each tool targets a distinct resource type: component docs, component source, general docs pages, the AI index, block listings, and component listings. No two tools appear to fetch the same kind of data, and the descriptions make the boundaries clear.
All six tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case. 'get_' is used for retrieval actions and 'list_' for enumerations, with clear, descriptive noun phrases (e.g., component_docs, llms_index). This creates a predictable and intuitive naming scheme.
With 6 tools, the server is well-scoped for a documentation-focused component library. Each tool provides a distinct, necessary capability without redundancy or bloat, fitting comfortably within the ideal range.
The tool surface fully covers the read-only documentation domain: it enables listing components and blocks, fetching component-specific docs or source, accessing generic docs pages, and retrieving the AI index. There are no obvious missing operations for the stated purpose, and no dead ends in the workflows.
get_component_docsAInspectFetch markdown documentation for a Slate component (e.g. button, dialog, input).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Component slug, e.g. button, alert-dialog, dark-mode-toggle |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It clearly states the return type (markdown documentation) and the target resource (Slate component), which is sufficient for a read-only fetch. It does not mention error handling or authentication, but the simplicity of the operation makes this acceptable.
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 that gets straight to the point. Every word earns its place by conveying the action, target, and format. No fluff or irrelevant details.
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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is quite complete. It specifies the input (component name) and output (markdown documentation) sufficiently. It might be slightly improved by noting that documentation is specific to Slate components, but this is a minor omission given the tool name and sibling context.
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 100% for the 'name' parameter, as the schema already provides a detailed description and examples. The tool description adds only generic examples ('button, dialog, input') that are slightly different from the schema's examples ('alert-dialog', 'dark-mode-toggle') but do not add substantial new meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.
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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and clearly defines the resource ('markdown documentation for a Slate component'), with concrete examples ('button, dialog, input'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_component_source (source code) and get_docs_page (generic docs page) by specifying 'component' docs in markdown format.
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?
The description implicitly tells the agent when to use this tool: whenever markdown documentation for a specific Slate component is needed. It provides clear context but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, which would be needed for a 5. Sibling tools are not named, but the resource specificity helps avoid confusion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_component_sourceAInspectFetch the primary Blade source for a Slate component from the 3.x GitHub branch.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Component slug, e.g. button, dialog, toaster |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states a fetch action and the branch, but does not disclose expected output format, potential errors, authentication requirements, or the fact that it may return only 'primary' source not all variants. Minimal behavioral disclosure beyond the verb itself.
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 concise sentence that is immediately informative and free of filler. Every word adds value, and it is front-loaded with the action and resource.
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?
The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema) and its purpose is straightforward. The description provides sufficient context (Slate component, 3.x branch) to invoke correctly. A small gap is not explaining 'primary Blade source', but overall it is adequate for the complexity.
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?
The single parameter 'name' is fully described in the schema ('Component slug, e.g. button, dialog, toaster'). The description does not add further parameter detail, but schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the action ('Fetch'), the resource ('primary Blade source for a Slate component'), and a specific context ('from the 3.x GitHub branch'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_component_docs by explicitly focusing on source code rather than documentation.
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?
The description implies usage by mentioning 'source', which differentiates it from docs-related siblings, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or provide any exclusions. Guidance is only implied via the resource type.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_docs_pageAInspectFetch a docs markdown page by path (e.g. getting-started/installation, livewire, ai).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Docs path without leading docs/, e.g. getting-started/installation or design-tokens |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Fetch' implying a read-only operation, but provides no additional details such as output format, error handling, or any side effects. For a simple read operation, this is adequate but not enriched.
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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and includes illustrative examples. Every part is relevant with no filler.
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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the path format and provides examples. It is complete enough for the agent to understand the tool's purpose and usage, though it could benefit from mentioning the markdown return format explicitly.
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?
The input schema already provides comprehensive descriptions and examples for the 'path' parameter (100% coverage). The description adds a few extra examples but does not offer substantial new meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.
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 clearly states the tool fetches a docs markdown page by path, with specific examples (getting-started/installation, livewire, ai). The verb 'Fetch' and resource 'docs markdown page' are unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like get_component_docs, which focus on component-specific docs, by emphasizing general docs pages.
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?
The description implies usage for general docs pages but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings or exclude cases. No alternatives are mentioned, so while context hints at differentiation, explicit guidance is missing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_llms_indexAInspectFetch https://slate.electrik.dev/llms.txt — the curated AI index for Slate.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must carry the burden. It says 'Fetch' which indicates a read operation, but it does not disclose potential side effects, caching behavior, error responses, or any other behavioral traits beyond the basic action.
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 concise sentence with no redundancy. It states the action and the target clearly without unnecessary words.
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?
Given the simplicity of the tool (no parameters, no output schema), the description sufficiently conveys what it does. It mentions the content type ('AI index') which adds context, though it does not specify the return format explicitly, but that is not required when no output schema exists.
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?
There are zero parameters, so the schema provides no information to cover. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description does not need to explain any parameter semantics, though it also adds no extra detail.
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 clearly states the tool fetches a specific URL (llms.txt) for Slate, which is a precise action and distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle component docs or list operations.
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?
The description does not explicitly say when to use this tool over alternatives. It implies it is for retrieving the AI index, but lacks direct guidance on context or comparison with get_docs_page or list_components.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_blocksBInspectList Slate docs-site blocks (copy-ready Blade sections).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. The description only mentions 'list' which implies a read-only operation, but does not elaborate on any nuances such as whether the blocks are paginated, ordered, or limited in any way. For a simple listing tool with no parameters, this might suffice, but the lack of any detailed behavior beyond the verb 'List' means the agent has no information about potential side effects or limitations.
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, concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose and includes a parenthetical clarifier. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and every word earns its place. There is no fluff or repetition, making it highly concise and effective for a tool with no parameters.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (zero parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is reasonably complete. It informs the agent that the tool lists 'copy-ready Blade sections,' which is sufficient for basic usage. However, the lack of any context about the environment (e.g., what a Slate docs-site is) or any behavioral details, combined with the absence of sibling differentiation, means it could be more informative. Since the schema and annotations are minimal, the description could have provided more context about the nature of 'blocks' and how they differ from components or pages.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the input schema is empty. The description adds semantic meaning by clarifying that the listed blocks are 'copy-ready Blade sections,' which helps the agent understand what the output will contain. Since there are no parameters to describe, the description's role in parameter semantics is minimal, but it appropriately clarifies the nature of the items listed. A score above 3 is justified because the description provides a useful semantic hint about the domain of the output.
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 'List Slate docs-site blocks (copy-ready Blade sections)' identifies the action ('List') and the resource ('Slate docs-site blocks'), and hints at their purpose ('copy-ready Blade sections'). However, it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like 'list_components' or 'get_docs_page', which are plausible alternatives for retrieving documentation content. The phrase 'docs-site blocks' is somewhat specific but lacks a clear differentiation from the sibling tools that might also list documentation pieces.
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?
There is no explicit or implied guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what the tool does, but does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions. For example, it does not indicate that blocks are for copy-ready sections while list_components or get_docs_page are for other purposes. This leaves an agent without a clear decision boundary.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_componentsAInspectList shipped Electrik Slate Blade components with docs URLs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or non-destructive. However, a listing operation is implicitly safe, but the lack of any side-effect or permission mention leaves some ambiguity.
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 concise sentence with no extraneous words. It directly conveys the tool's purpose without redundancy.
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?
Given the simplicity of the tool (no parameters, no output schema), the description adequately conveys what the tool does. It could potentially mention whether the list is ordered or filtered, but that is not critical for basic usage.
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?
The tool has no parameters, and the schema coverage is effectively 100% (no undefined fields). Per the rubric, the baseline is 3 when there is no parameter information to add, and the description does not need to elaborate further.
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 clearly states the action (List) and the resource (shipped Slate Blade components) with the output (docs URLs). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_component_docs or get_component_source, which focus on individual components, while this lists all components.
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?
The description implies usage when needing an overview of all components with their documentation URLs. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the sibling tools are distinct enough that the purpose is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
