Get a component/block/chart/template's docs by slug: install, import and the full structured API (inputs, two-way models, outputs, types).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Slug, e.g. "onboarding-tour". |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error conditions, leaving the agent with incomplete context.
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?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes key details about what the docs contain, with no redundant words.
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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what is returned (install, import, full API). It could mention the return format or error scenarios, but is largely sufficient for a retrieval tool.
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% with a clear example ('onboarding-tour'), and the description's mention of 'by slug' aligns. However, the description adds minimal extra semantics beyond 'slug' and the example.
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 clearly states the action (get) and the resource (docs for a component/block/chart/template by slug), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_blocks and get_api by specifying that it returns full structured API details including install, import, inputs, etc.
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 usage when a slug is available and full docs are needed, but offers no explicit guidance on when to use alternatives (e.g., list_* for browsing, get_api for API docs) or when not to use it.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: listing different resource types, getting specific documentation, and keyword search. No overlap exists.
Tools consistently use 'get_' and 'list_' prefixes, but 'search' deviates slightly from the verb_noun pattern, though it remains predictable.
Seven tools is well-scoped for a component library server, covering listing, searching, and retrieving details without unnecessary bloat.
The tool surface covers the full workflow: discover resources via list and search, then get detailed docs or API. No obvious gaps for the stated purpose.