Get the machine-readable Motion Menu quality contract. Call before build_page. It defines anti-generic composition rules, motion lifecycle, responsive requirements, truth constraints, and release verification gates.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It goes beyond a generic 'get' by listing the contract's contents (anti-generic composition rules, motion lifecycle, etc.), disclosing what the agent will receive. It does not mention side effects, but for a retrieval tool this is sufficient. The description adds substantial context beyond the tool name.
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 sentences, both purposeful. The first states the resource and purpose; the second gives usage timing and content details. Information is front-loaded and there is no wasted verbiage.
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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is fully complete. It states what the contract is, when to call it, and what it contains. An agent needs no additional information to correctly invoke and understand the tool's role.
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 tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per the instruction baseline for zero-parameter tools, a score of 4 is appropriate. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it doesn't pretend to.
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 states a specific verb ('Get') and a precise resource ('the machine-readable Motion Menu quality contract'). It clearly conveys what the tool does and implicitly differentiates it from sibling tools by highlighting its role as a contract retrieval, not a build or audit operation.
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?
Explicitly instructs to 'Call before build_page', giving direct usage context. It also lists what the contract defines, which informs when an agent would need it. While it doesn't mention alternatives, the placement before build_page is a clear trigger.
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 targets a distinct stage of the workflow: discovery (list_patterns, recommend_patterns), selection (get_pattern), validation (validate_combination), construction (build_page), quality assurance (audit_page, verify_repair), configuration (get_kit, get_design_digest), and maintenance (check_updates). audit_page and verify_repair are related but clearly differentiated by baseline comparison and pass/fail verdicts.
All tools follow an identical verb_noun snake_case pattern (audit_page, build_page, list_patterns, validate_combination, etc.). The verbs are specific and descriptive, and the nouns clearly indicate the target resource. Naming is perfectly uniform.
With 10 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose. It covers the full lifecycle of building and auditing Motion Menu pages without redundancy or unnecessary sprawl. Each tool earns its place in a cohesive workflow, and the count fits the domain perfectly.
The tool surface is comprehensive for the stated purpose: from discovering patterns (list_patterns, recommend_patterns) to fetching code (get_pattern), validating combinations (validate_combination), designing pages (build_page), auditing (audit_page), repairing (verify_repair), and tracking updates (check_updates). The only missing operation might be a direct 'create pattern' tool, but that falls outside the server's intended scope of using existing patterns.
