get_component_source
Fetch the primary Blade source for a Slate component from the 3.x GitHub branch.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Component slug, e.g. button, dialog, toaster |
Slate
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
A3.6/5.0
Behavior2/5
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.
Conciseness5/5
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.
Completeness4/5
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.
Parameters3/5
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.
Purpose5/5
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.
Usage Guidelines3/5
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.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
Tools are mostly distinct: get_component_docs, get_component_source, get_docs_page, get_llms_index, list_blocks, and list_components each have a clear intent. The only mild overlap is between get_component_docs and get_docs_page, since component docs are also docs pages, but the descriptions resolve the boundary well enough.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a clean verb_noun snake_case pattern: get_* fetches a specific artifact and list_* returns a collection. The naming is predictable and easy to extend, making the set feel coherent.
Tool Count5/5
Six tools is a well-scoped number for a documentation-oriented server. Each tool covers a distinct retrieval or listing need without adding redundancy or unnecessary surface area.
Completeness4/5
The set covers core workflows well: component docs, component source, general docs pages, an AI index, and listings for components and blocks. A minor gap is the lack of a direct block detail/source fetcher, but agents can likely work around it using the docs page and list tools.