get_installThe three ways to install one component (npm package plus import line, Vlak CLI, shadcn CLI) and the CSS-only markup, with its registry dependencies.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Component name |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cli | Yes | ||
| name | Yes | ||
| shadcn | Yes | ||
| cssOnly | Yes | ||
| package | Yes | ||
| registryDependencies | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnly and idempotent behavior, so no contradiction. The description adds that it returns three installation methods plus CSS-only markup and registry dependencies, which is useful. However, it does not clarify whether installation is actually performed or just documented, and it omits details like error behavior or output format.
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?
One sentence packs in the key output details: three install methodsasi and CSS-only markup. It is concise and front-loaded, though the parenthetical list is slightly awkward and makes the sentence dense.
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?
For a simple read-only tool with one parameter retriever, the description conveys the main output content (install methods and CSS-only markup with registry dependencies). It does not explicitly mention the return format or errors, but the read-only annotations and simple input reduce the need for more.
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?
The schema covers the single parameter 'name' with 'Component name', and the description references 'one component' without adding further semantics. The parameter meaning is fully documented by the schema, so the description provides little additional value.
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 title 'Get install commands' and description clearly identify the resource: install instructions for a component. It enumerates the three install methods and CSS-only markup, which distinguishes it from siblings like get_component or get_tokens. However, the description is a noun phrase without an explicit verb like 'Returns' or 'Gets,' so it is clear but not maximally explicit.
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 implies this tool is for retrieving install commands for a single component, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like get_component or list_components. There is no direct comparison or exclusion guidance for sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.