Skip to main content
Glama

standby-design-mcp

by io.github.KarstenKreh

Generate shape tokens

generate_shape_tokens
Read-only

Generate shape tokens — radii, shadows, borders, focus rings — in one of four visual styles: "paper" (classic surfaces with layered shadows), "glass" (liquid glass), "neomorph" (soft neumorphism), "neobrutalism" (hard offset shadows). Returns a shareable standby.design/system URL and a summary. Always give that URL to the user — the link is the deliverable.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlNoExisting standby.design URL (or raw hash) to modify. Only this tool's section is changed; color/type/shape/icon/spacing settings from other tools are preserved. Omit to start fresh from defaults.
styleNoTop-level visual style (default "paper").
glassBlurNoGlass backdrop blur (default 1.0).
ringStyleNoFocus ring shape: "soft" (default) is a translucent halo at the edge plus a full-color border, "solid" is a hard outline set off by ringOffset.
ringWidthNoFocus ring width in px (default 2).
glassDepthNoGlass displacement intensity (default 0.2).
ringOffsetNoFocus ring offset in px (default 2).
shadowTypeNoShadow rendering for paper style.
borderWidthNoBorder width in px (default 1).
shadowScaleNoElevation level spread ratio (default 1.272).
borderRadiusNoBase radius in px; scales to a xs–xl radius set (default 8).
ringColorHexNoCustom focus ring color as hex, or "auto" (default).
borderEnabledNo
shadowEnabledNo
shadowOffsetXNoBrutalist shadow X offset in px (default 2).
shadowOffsetYNoBrutalist shadow Y offset in px (default 4).
borderColorHexNoCustom border color as hex, or "auto" (default).
separationModeNoHow surfaces separate from the background.
shadowColorHexNoCustom shadow color as hex, or "auto" (default).
shadowStrengthNoShadow alpha multiplier (default 1.0).
glassDispersionNoChromatic aberration intensity (default 0.4).
shadowBlurScaleNoShadow blur multiplier (default 1.0).
brutalistVariantNo

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description discloses that the tool returns a shareable URL and summary, and emphasizes the URL as the deliverable. This adds value beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, and there is no contradiction with annotations.

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 two concise sentences, with the main verb and resource front-loaded, and every phrase earns its place (styles, deliverable). No redundancy or filler.

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 description covers the tool's core purpose, styles, and output deliverable. The rich schema compensates for any missing parameter details, though it could mention the ability to modify an existing URL (which is present in the schema but not the description).

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 schema already provides descriptions for 87% of parameters, so the description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond that. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 identifies the tool as generating shape tokens (radii, shadows, borders, focus rings) and enumerates the four visual styles, differentiating it from sibling token generators as well as other design system tools.

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 for creating shape tokens but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. It does give a clear deliverable instruction ('Always give that URL to the user'), but lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this over sibling tools.

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

All standby-design-mcp 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

A4.3/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct design token category (color, icon, shape, space, type) or a distinct operation (export, get, list fonts). There is no overlap in purpose or output format.

Naming Consistency5/5

Generation tools consistently use generate_*_tokens except for generate_type_scale and generate_color_palette which still follow the generate_ verb. Utility tools use clear action verbs (export, get, list) with all lowercase snake_case naming.

Tool Count5/5

Eight tools provide a well-scoped set for design system token generation and retrieval. Each tool earns its place without redundancy or unnecessary bloat.

Completeness4/5

The set covers the main design system pillars (color, typography, spacing, shape, icons) plus export and retrieval workflows. Minor gaps like a direct 'update' or 'delete' tool are unnecessary for the generative use case.

Resources