petal-components-mcp
Server Details
Phoenix LiveView component schemas from petal_components, exposed to AI coding assistants.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
- Repository
- petalframework/petal-components-mcp
- GitHub Stars
- 0
- Server Listing
- petal-components-mcp
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4.3/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: list_components provides an overview of all available components, while get_component returns detailed schema for a specific component. No overlap or ambiguity.
Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (list_components, get_component) using snake_case, making the naming predictable and easy to understand.
With only 2 tools, the server is minimal. It covers listing and retrieval of component details, which is reasonable for a read-only reference, but feels thin compared to typical MCP servers that offer more interaction.
The tool surface covers the primary use case of exploring a component library: listing all components and retrieving full details. Missing features like search or filtering are minor gaps that agents could work around.
Available Tools
2 toolsget_componentAInspect
Get the full schema for a single petal_components component — attrs, slots, defaults, allowed values, and a HEEx usage example. Call this any time you're about to write a Phoenix LiveView component reference like <.pc_button> or <.input>, to ensure the attrs and slots match the real library.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Component function name (e.g. 'button', 'modal', 'input'). Get the full list via list_components. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It clearly states what the tool returns (schema with details) and implies a read-only operation (no destructive hints). It doesn't mention side effects, but for a get schema tool, this is sufficiently transparent.
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?
The description is two sentences, front-loads the purpose, and provides essential guidance without any redundant or filler words.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one required param, no output schema), the description fully covers what the tool returns, how to use it (parameter example), and when to invoke it. No gaps remain for an agent to be confused.
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% (parameter 'name' described). The description adds value beyond the schema by providing example values ('button', 'modal', 'input') and a cross-reference to list_components. This elevates it above the baseline of 3.
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 explicitly states the action (Get), the resource (full schema for a single petal_components component), and the specific data elements (attrs, slots, defaults, allowed values, usage example). This clearly differentiates from the sibling tool list_components.
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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call this any time you're about to write a Phoenix LiveView component reference...' It also implicitly references the sibling tool for listing, but lacks explicit 'when not to use' or alternative tool mentions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_componentsAInspect
List every component available in petal_components (the Shadcn-style Phoenix LiveView component library). Use this first to see what's available before composing HEEx markup.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, description carries full burden. States listing operation without side effects. Does not disclose return format or any behavioral traits beyond the core action. Adequate but minimal.
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, front-loaded with action and resource. Zero wasted words. Efficiently communicates purpose and usage.
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 simple zero-parameter list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is complete enough. It tells what it does and when to use it. Some minor gap about output format, but overall adequate.
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?
No parameters exist, schema coverage is 100%. Baseline 3 applies as description adds no param info, but none is needed. No issues.
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?
Description clearly states 'List every component' with specific resource (petal_components) and context (Shadcn-style Phoenix LiveView). Differentiates from sibling tool get_component by indicating this is the overview tool.
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?
Explicitly advises 'Use this first to see what's available before composing HEEx markup', providing clear when-to-use context. Lacks explicit alternative mention or when-not-to-use, but is sufficiently directive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Your Connectors
Sign in to create a connector for this server.