Compose Preview Catalogs

ui_builder_implementation_status

Everything the code side needs to implement a design, in one call: the revision, its links (issue, reference, PR, thread), the implementation PR with its status and whether its previews were found to match, the latest verdict on this revision, and the Compose export with the generator's diagnostics. summary says in one line whether the PR implements this revision and whether it was approved. includeExport: false leaves the Kotlin out and needs only read access; with it the call needs the ui-builder-export capability.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`token`	No	A 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.
`designId`	Yes
`revision`	No	A past revision. Omit for the current one.
`agentName`	No	Optional agent/client name shown to design viewers; self-reported.
`agentModel`	No	Optional current model name shown to design viewers; self-reported. Omit when unknown.
`includeExport`	No	Include the Compose export. Defaults to true.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`links`	No
`export`	No
`schema`	Yes
`summary`	Yes
`designId`	Yes
`revision`	Yes
`implementation`	No
`latestDecision`	No
`implementsRevision`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 4, 2026

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"
+}

AddedOct 1, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

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 reasonably well: it discloses the read-vs-capability-gated behavior of includeExport, summarizes what `summary` reports, and explains the token/header auth model for session grants. It does not state whether the call is read-only overall or mention rate/pagination behavior, so it is good but not complete.

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?

Front-loaded with the payload summary, then two short sentences covering `summary` and the export/capability gating. Slightly dense and run-on, and the export behavior is touched in both the first and third sentences, but each sentence carries information.

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 composite read tool with an output schema present, the description need not detail return shapes, and it correctly focuses on auth and the export capability gate. An agent has enough to call it correctly; only explicit sibling routing is missing.

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 already 83% (baseline 3), and the description adds real meaning on top: it explains the capability implication of `includeExport` and the header-vs-token tradeoff for the `token` parameter. It adds little beyond the schema for designId/revision/agentName.

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?

The description names the resource (a design revision's implementation status) and enumerates exactly what the call returns: revision, links (issue/reference/PR/thread), the implementation PR with status and preview match, latest verdict, and Compose export. That is specific and distinguishes it from narrow siblings like ui_builder_get_links or ui_builder_export, though it never names those alternatives.

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?

It implies the usage condition (everything needed on the code side to implement a design) and states that `includeExport: false` needs only read access while the default export path requires the ui-builder-export capability. There is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-another-tool guidance despite many overlapping siblings.

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

All Compose Preview Catalogs tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Shareable, User-Owned Context BackendPeople, applications, and agents read, write, and coordinate together in one context lake. Reach it over MCP, a CLI, a Python SDK, or REST.fulcradynamics.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.