The pages that aren't about one component: getting started, theming, Tailwind, SCSS, forms, right to left, translation, the Content Security Policy, support, and recipes for whole screens.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only a content inventory, saying nothing about pagination, ordering, or result shape beyond what annotations and the schema imply.
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?
It is a single front-loaded sentence that defines the scope first, then enumerates topics. The topic list is long but each item earns its place by helping an agent judge relevance; nothing is redundant.
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 list tool with annotations covering safety, a fully documented single parameter, and no output schema, the description is sufficient to select and call it correctly. Minor gaps (result ordering/pagination) are non-blocking.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and the single 'version' parameter is fully documented in the schema including format and default behavior. The description adds no additional meaning about versioning, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 identifies the resource (non-component pages) and enumerates the concrete topics it covers, which lets an agent distinguish it from list_components at a glance. The verb 'list' is only implicit in 'The pages that...', so it is slightly less crisp than an explicit verb+resource statement.
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 phrase 'aren't about one component' implicitly contrasts with list_components, suggesting this is for conceptual/topical docs rather than component reference. However, no alternative tool is named and there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.
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.