Skip to main content
Glama

marmo-ui

by io.github.mahmoudilyan

validate_component_usage

Validate a TSX/JSX snippet against real @marmoui/ui prop signatures. Returns {valid, issues[]}. Prefer review_generated_code for post-generation review (it also auto-fixes namespace patterns and suggests related patterns). Use this tool when validating user-provided or existing code rather than newly generated code.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
codeYesTSX/JSX code snippet to validate against @marmoui/ui
iconLibraryNoOptional: icon library the code must import icons from. Default: "phosphor". When set, imports from any other icon library are reported as errors. 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return shape ('{"valid, issues[]"}') and implicitly signals read-only behavior by contrasting with review_generated_code's auto-fix capability. It could explicitly state that it does not modify code, but the validation intent is clear.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then return shape, then usage guidance. Every sentence contributes unique value with no redundancy or filler.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage boundaries, and basic return shape. It does not detail the structure of 'issues[]', but this is a minor omission given the tool's simplicity. Overall, it is nearly complete for this complexity level.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (code and iconLibrary) are already well-documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already provides, which meets the baseline.

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 a specific verb ('Validate') and resource ('TSX/JSX snippet against real @marmoui/ui prop signatures'), making the tool's function unmistakable. It also explicitly contrasts with 'review_generated_code', distinguishing it from a key sibling.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Prefer review_generated_code for post-generation review' and 'Use this tool when validating user-provided or existing code rather than newly generated code.' This leaves no ambiguity about the intended context.

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