Get one pattern by number, including its complete transplantable HTML, CSS and JS. Pass framework to get a ready-to-use component wrapper (react .tsx, vue .vue, svelte .svelte, or vanilla .ts).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | No | permanent identity, e.g. "velocity-image-bend" — preferred | |
| number | No | pattern number, e.g. "84" — a permanent alias for the slug | |
| framework | No | component wrapper format (default: raw HTML/CSS/JS) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return content (HTML/CSS/JS and optional wrappers) and the effect of the 'framework' parameter. It does not mention side effects, but for a read operation this is sufficient.
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 pack the core purpose, output details, and parameter behavior with zero waste. The key action is front-loaded, making it easy to parse.
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?
The description is mostly complete for a single-record fetch. However, it does not explicitly state that either 'slug' or 'number' is required (since required params are 0), which could leave the agent uncertain about argument requirements.
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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining that 'slug' is preferred and that passing 'framework' yields a ready-to-use wrapper, which clarifies the purpose of the framework parameter beyond its enum values.
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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'one pattern by number', and specifies the output includes 'complete transplantable HTML, CSS and JS'. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'list_patterns' which presumably return multiple items.
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 gives clear context on when to use the tool (to retrieve a single pattern) and how to use the 'framework' parameter to get a wrapper. It does not explicitly mention alternative tools or exclusions, but the singular 'one pattern' implies differentiation from list tools.
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.
