list_fontsList Fontshare font slugs usable in generate_type_scale (headingFont/bodyFont/monoFont), grouped by category. This is the bundled seed catalog — any valid Fontshare slug works even if not listed here.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds that it is a bundled seed catalog and that valid slugs not listed still work, providing extra context beyond the annotations.
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 two sentences, front-loading the main purpose and resource, with no redundant information.
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?
Despite having no output schema, the description fully explains what the tool returns (font slugs grouped by category) and its usage context, making it complete for the tool's simple functionality.
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 no parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (empty). The description is not required to add parameter info, but it provides complete context for the tool's input.
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 lists Fontshare font slugs usable in generate_type_scale, grouped by category. It differentiates from sibling tools which are generation or export tools.
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 explicitly links the tool to generate_type_scale usage and notes that any valid Fontshare slug works even if not listed, guiding when to use it. No exclusion criteria are given, but the context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
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.
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.
Eight tools provide a well-scoped set for design system token generation and retrieval. Each tool earns its place without redundancy or unnecessary bloat.
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.