Skip to main content
Glama

marmo-ui

by io.github.mahmoudilyan

get_pattern

Get a complete, validated composition example for a common UI pattern. Available: app-layouts (ASK USER which of 4 layout ids before any full page), app-shell, confirmation-dialog, dialogs-for-other-actions, data-table-with-filters, form-with-validation, posthog-tracking. Call app-layouts first for full pages — returns layout selection flow + AppLayout usage. Pass iconLibrary (default "phosphor") so the usage note tells you which icon import source to rewrite the pattern's icons to. Returns code + inline validation report. Call with no arguments to list all patterns.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
patternIdNoPattern identifier, e.g. "app-shell", "data-table-with-filters", "confirmation-dialog", "dialogs-for-other-actions". Omit to list all available patterns.
iconLibraryNoIcon library the caller is using. Default: "phosphor". The returned usage note tells the agent which icon import source to use, and the inline validation enforces it. Supported: phosphor, material, lucide, tabler, heroicons, feather.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses return contents (code + inline validation report), the app-layouts selection flow, and how iconLibrary affects the output. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior, but the 'get' verb and overall framing imply it strongly.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single paragraph that is information-dense but not rambling. Every sentence contributes to understanding the tool's behavior. It could be improved with bullets for readability, but it remains efficient and well-structured.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description covers all critical aspects: purpose, available patterns, special flow, parameter effects, return value, and how to list all patterns. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without additional context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds meaning by explaining the effect of iconLibrary ('so the usage note tells you which icon import source to rewrite the pattern's icons to') and reinforces the omit-to-list behavior, providing value beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves a 'complete, validated composition example for a common UI pattern,' with an explicit list of available patterns. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_component_info or get_design_guidelines by focusing on pattern-level compositions rather than individual components or guidelines.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives clear usage context, including special instruction to 'Call app-layouts first for full pages' and to 'Call with no arguments to list all patterns.' It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context is strong enough for an agent to apply correctly.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All marmo-ui toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes, but review_generated_code and validate_component_usage are very similar in functionality, differentiated only by intended usage context. list_components and search_components also have some overlap, though descriptions clarify their preferred use cases.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., get_component_info, list_components, review_generated_code). The verbs are clear and the naming convention is uniform throughout.

Tool Count5/5

14 tools is well within the ideal 3-15 range and each tool serves a distinct role in the workflow: discovery, guidance, generation, validation, and prototype sharing. The count feels appropriate for the server's comprehensive purpose.

Completeness4/5

The server covers the full generation workflow: discover components, get guidelines, generate code, validate, and deploy/share. However, there is no tool to retrieve or list saved custom components, and prototype management is limited to deploy and feedback, leaving minor gaps in persisted resource handling.

Resources