The design tokens as CSS custom properties, for your own CSS: var(--color-primary), never a color written out. A prefix gives only those, such as --color-, --radius- or --text-.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| prefix | No | ||
| version | No | The @nuvui/react version in the project's package.json, such as 0.6.2 or ^0.6.0, for the docs of that release. Leave it out for the latest release. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / versionAdded value: +{
+ "description": "The @nuvui/react version in the project's package.json, such as 0.6.2 or ^0.6.0, for the docs of that release. Leave it out for the latest release.",
+ "maxLength": 40,
+ "minLength": 1,
+ "pattern": "^(?:\\^|~|>=|=)?v?\\d+(?:\\.(?:\\d+|x|\\*)){0,2}(?:-[0-9A-Za-z.-]+)?$",
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the output format (CSS custom properties, never literal colors) and the filtering behavior of prefix, which is useful context. It does not describe pagination or the full shape of the returned token set.
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?
Two compact sentences; the return format is front-loaded and the prefix behavior follows. The phrasing "never a color written out" is slightly indirect but earns its place as a usage constraint.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description must characterize the return value — and it does, as CSS custom properties with an example. Combined with annotations covering the safety profile and the schema documenting version, this is nearly complete for a simple read tool; only the structural shape of the returned list is left implicit.
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?
prefix is undocumented in the schema, but the description compensates by explaining that it returns only matching tokens and giving concrete examples (--color-, --radius-, --text-). The version parameter is fully described in the schema itself. Meaningful added value beyond the schema for the uncovered parameter.
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?
States the resource concretely: design tokens delivered as CSS custom properties, with an example (var(--color-primary)). This is clearly distinct from the block/chart/page/rules siblings without needing to name an alternative. It stops short of framing itself against any specific sibling, so a 4 rather than a 5.
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?
"for your own CSS" and the prefix examples imply the intended use (consuming token values rather than hardcoding colors), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. Usage is only inferred.
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.