Skip to main content
Glama

ui_builder_design_access

Read who can open a design: its owner, and every actor it has been shared with, each with the role and the actions that grant carries. Only the owner may ask — this is the answer to "who else is in here" and to "what is the id I must name when sharing".

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tokenNoA grant token from poll_access, when you cannot set the X-Compose-Preview-Token header yourself — an MCP client fixes its headers at connect time, so this is how a token approved during this session is used in it. Prefer the header where you control it.
designIdYes
agentNameNoOptional agent/client name shown to design viewers; self-reported.
agentModelNoOptional current model name shown to design viewers; self-reported. Omit when unknown.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / agentModel
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "Optional current model name shown to design viewers; self-reported. Omit when unknown.",
      +  "maxLength": 80,
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
    • addedInput schema / properties / agentName
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "Optional agent/client name shown to design viewers; self-reported.",
      +  "maxLength": 80,
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
      +  "type": "object"
      +}
  3. First observed

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose a real behavioral trait: the owner-only authorization requirement, which appears nowhere in the schema. It implies read-only via "Read" but adds no rate-limit or error-behavior context, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded, followed by the auth constraint and usage framing. The quoted phrasings are slightly discursive but each earns its place by clarifying intent.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the schema documents most parameters. Purpose, authorization, and usage intent are all covered, leaving only minor gaps (no explicit sibling routing) for a read tool of this complexity.

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 coverage is 75% and the token/agentName/agentModel descriptions already explain themselves well. The description only adds meaning for designId (the id you must name when sharing); the other three params get nothing new, so the baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb (Read) and resource (who can open a design), and enumerates the payload precisely: owner, every shared actor, each with role and granted actions. This clearly separates it from the mutating sibling ui_builder_share_design, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

Gives a concrete precondition ("Only the owner may ask") and two motivating scenarios ("who else is in here" and finding the id needed for sharing), which effectively routes the agent here versus share_design. No explicit when-not or named alternatives, so not a 5.

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.