get_component_docs
Fetch markdown documentation for a Slate component (e.g. button, dialog, input).
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Component slug, e.g. button, alert-dialog, dark-mode-toggle |
Electrik Slate
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5
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 that it fetches markdown documentation (a read operation), but does not mention error behavior (e.g., missing component), rate limits, or other constraints. It adds only a minimal behavioral profile.
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with the key action and resource, and includes a relevant example list. No wasted words.
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 simple one-parameter fetch tool, the description adequately covers purpose and parameter. No output schema exists, but the return type (markdown docs) is stated. It lacks error-handling or edge-case notes, but the simplicity of the tool keeps it mostly complete.
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% and the parameter 'name' is well-documented with examples. The description repeats the same examples (button, dialog, input) without adding new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 states the verb 'Fetch' and the resource 'markdown documentation for a Slate component'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_component_source (source code) and get_docs_page (generic docs) by specifying the component doc target with examples.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives clear context (use for Slate component docs) but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use. It implies usage by mentioning component names, but lacks explicit alternatives or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools are clearly distinct: component docs, component source, docs pages, and index browsing each target a specific need. The only potential confusion is between get_component_docs and get_docs_page, since component docs are a subset of docs pages, but the descriptions clarify the intended usage.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (get_* and list_*), with clear and predictable object nouns. This makes it easy to infer what each tool does before reading its description.
Tool Count5/5
Six tools is well-scoped for a documentation and component lookup server. Each tool covers a distinct need—listing, fetching docs, fetching source, and browsing pages—without unnecessary duplication.
Completeness4/5
The core workflows of exploring components, fetching component docs, and retrieving source code are well covered. A minor gap is that blocks can only be listed, with no corresponding block detail or source tool, and there is no search capability beyond the llms.txt index.