Skip to main content
Glama

Designesy

by io.github.LE-VAI

designesy_drift_score

Score a live URL for AI-generated UI drift — 12 checks detect the four documented 2026 drift failure modes: token fabrication (var() to undeclared custom properties), within-session drift (spacing/color/radius value variance), between-session amnesia (inconsistent font stacks, shadows, transitions), and silent breaking changes (z-index chaos, dangling alias chains). Use this when you need to verify whether a site (especially an AI-generated one) is drifting off its own declared token system. When NOT to use: for a full 42-check design-contract score, use designesy_score; for token-file format validation, use designesy_tokens_score. Executable — fetches the URL server-side, extracts all CSS (inline + linked stylesheets), parses :root custom properties and var() references, runs 12 drift checks. No browser needed. Returns JSON: { ok, url, score (0-100), grade (A-F), pass, warn, fail, total, tokensExtracted, checks[{id, item, category, status, detail}] }. Results cached ~24h per URL.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlNoURL to scan for drift. Defaults to https://www.designesy.org/ if not provided.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and meets it thoroughly. It reveals that the tool is executable, fetches the URL server-side, extracts and parses CSS, runs 12 checks, requires no browser, returns a structured JSON payload, and caches results ~24h per URL. This gives the agent a realistic model of side effects and behavior.

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 earns its place: it defines the core purpose, enumerates failure modes, gives usage and exclusion guidance, explains execution behavior, and specifies the return shape. It is front-loaded with the most decision-relevant information and remains easy to scan despite its length.

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?

Given only one optional parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers what the tool does, how it works, when to avoid it, what the JSON response contains, and even a caching caveat. An agent has enough context to select and invoke the tool correctly without further documentation.

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 input schema already documents the single 'url' parameter with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only the default value, which is also present in the schema, so it does not significantly expand parameter semantics beyond what structured metadata already provides.

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 states a clear, specific action: 'Score a live URL for AI-generated UI drift' and enumerates the 12 checks and four drift failure modes it detects. It clearly differentiates this tool from its siblings by naming the distinct scope and the exact classes of problems it addresses.

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 says when to use the tool ('Use this when you need to verify whether a site... is drifting') and when not to, naming the alternatives designesy_score and designesy_tokens_score. This gives an agent unambiguous routing guidance beyond what the tool name alone conveys.

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