Skip to main content
Glama

Designesy

by io.github.LE-VAI

designesy_design_review

Get the Designesy Design Review framework — an 8-dimension rubric (Purpose, Clarity, Context, Inclusion, System coherence, Durability, Delight, Responsibility) plus the agent prompt, output format, and verification checklist for a qualitative design critique. Use this when you want a structured rubric to critique a design holistically, rather than a numeric compliance score. When NOT to use: for a deterministic numeric score, use designesy_score; this tool gives you a rubric, not a number. Read-only — returns the rubric + prompt. The calling agent performs the actual critique (this tool does not evaluate the design for you). Returns JSON: { rubric, dimensions[8], agent_prompt, output_format, verification_checklist }. Pass artifact/purpose/context/rules to get a pre-filled critique prompt; omit all four to get the blank framework.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
rulesNoGoverning rules or contract version (default: designesy design system v0.4.0).
contextNoAudience, device, environment, and constraints.
purposeNoWhat the design is trying to make possible.
artifactNoURL or description of the artifact to review.

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses read-only status, the fact that it returns a rubric + prompt rather than performing evaluation, and the exact JSON return shape. This goes beyond basic expectations and prevents misuse.

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 dense but every sentence serves a purpose: component list, use case, exclusion, read-only note, return format, and parameter behavior. It is front-loaded with the essential 'what' before diving into details, with no redundant phrasing.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool returns a framework, and the description covers its composition, usage, parameter behavior, and output schema (via textual keys) since no formal output schema exists. For a read-only retrieval tool, this is effectively complete.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, but the description adds aggregate behavior: passing artifact/purpose/context/rules pre-fills the critique prompt, while omitting them yields the blank framework. This enhances the schema's individual parameter descriptions by explaining their joint effect.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'Get the Designesy Design Review framework' followed by an explicit 8-dimension breakdown. It clearly distinguishes from siblings by naming designesy_score as the numeric alternative, making the tool's qualitative role unambiguous.

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?

The description explicitly states when to use ('when you want a structured rubric to critique a design holistically') and when not to ('for a deterministic numeric score, use designesy_score'). It also clarifies that the calling agent performs the critique, setting appropriate expectations for the tool's role.

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

All Designesy 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

A4.7/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly scoped purpose, and the extensive 'When NOT to use' notices cleanly separate the many scoring variants (e.g., score, drift, readiness, monitor, tokens, motion, a11y). Even similar informational endpoints (contract, skill, llms) are differentiated by format and use case. No two tools appear to do the same thing.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent 'designesy_' prefix, and scoring tools uniformly append '_score' (e.g., drift_score, tokens_score, monitor_score). Non-score tools use descriptive noun suffixes (catalog, contract, report, guardrails). The pattern is predictable and uniform throughout.

Tool Count4/5

At 17 tools, the set is slightly above the ideal 3-15 range, but the breadth of the design-system intelligence domain justifies the count. Each scoring variant targets a different artifact (live URL, token file, Lottie, temporal drift) and the informational endpoints serve distinct formats. The tool count is heavy but not bloated.

Completeness5/5

The toolset covers the full assessment lifecycle: full audit (score), drift and temporal governance (drift_score, monitor_score), AI readiness (readiness_score), token and motion validation (tokens_score, motion_score), accessibility framework (a11y_score), diff (compare), composite report (report), guardrails generation, and multiple discovery formats (catalog, contract, skill_md, llms). No obvious dead ends exist; each tool leads to a usable artifact or clear next step.

Resources