get_sourceThe full .tsx source of an item, to write to components/ui/.tsx when the shadcn CLI isn't available. Pro items need the user's access key in the MCP connection.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | The item's slug, e.g. reaction-bar – add -clean for the clean style, e.g. ai-answer-clean |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / slug / descriptionPrevious value: -"The item's slug, e.g. reaction-bar"New value: +"The item's slug, e.g. reaction-bar – add -clean for the clean style, e.g. ai-answer-clean"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses an auth prerequisite ('Pro items need the user's access key in the MCP connection'), but says nothing about what happens on a missing item, whether access-key-gated items fail or return partial content, or any size/rate constraints.
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, no filler, and the payload description is front-loaded before the usage condition and the auth caveat. Every clause earns its place.
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 single-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned, where it is meant to be written, and the Pro access-key requirement. Minor gaps remain around failure modes, but nothing essential to invoking it correctly is missing.
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% and the schema already explains the slug format including the -clean suffix convention. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?
States precisely what is returned: the full .tsx source of an item, which is distinct from the lookup/listing behavior implied by get_component, list_components, and search_components. The verb is implicit (it reads as a noun phrase, 'The full .tsx source') but the resource and payload are unambiguous.
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?
Gives a concrete usage context – write the output to components/ui/<slug>.tsx when the shadcn CLI is unavailable – which tells the agent the scenario this tool serves. It does not, however, explicitly contrast with get_component or state when this source-fetch is the wrong choice.
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.