Get the Motion Menu build kit: the design laws, the one-page act protocol, stack pins, known gotchas, and the full pattern index. Call this FIRST before building a page.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses what the tool returns (a bundle of design assets and instructions) and conditions usage ('before building a page'). While it doesn't detail the exact response format or state read-only behavior, the 'get' verb and content list make the behavior transparent enough for a parameter-free retrieval tool.
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 sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose, lists contents, and ends with a clear call to action. Every phrase adds value, with no fluff or repetition.
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?
Given there are no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description fully covers what the tool does, what it contains, and when to use it. A minor omission is the explicit return structure, but for a simple 'get' of a known kit, the content list is sufficient.
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, so there is nothing to explain. Per the rubric, with 0 params the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-related details because none are needed.
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 tool retrieves the Motion Menu build kit and enumerates its exact contents (design laws, act protocol, stack pins, gotchas, pattern index). It uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('build kit'), and differentiates itself from sibling tools like get_pattern or list_patterns by representing the comprehensive aggregate starter kit.
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 explicitly instructs to 'Call this FIRST before building a page,' which is a clear timing directive. It does not name alternative tools or provide exclusion criteria, but the 'FIRST' instruction strongly implies it is the preferred entry point over siblings, earning a 4.
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.
