Compose Preview Catalogs

ui_builder_list_comments

Read the discussion on a design: every thread, where each is pinned — a markup stroke, a design node, or a point on the frame — whether it is resolved, and every reply under it. sequence rises on each change and is the cursor to quote to ui_builder_await_comments. Comments are kept beside the design and are never part of it: no node holds them and no export sees them. Each thread carries acknowledgedBy, so you can see what you have already caught up with; say you have read the rest with ui_builder_acknowledge_comment.

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
`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.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

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"
+}

Changed1 schema field changedSep 30, 2026
- changedOutput schema / (root)
```
Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "type": "object"
+}
```
First observedSep 30, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

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 delivers real non-obvious behavior: comments live beside the design and are never part of it ('no node holds them and no export sees them'), `sequence` rises on each change, and threads carry `acknowledgedBy`. It omits auth/permission requirements and any pagination or volume behavior, so it is solid but not exhaustive.

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 core read purpose, then behavior and sibling routing; no filler sentences. It runs slightly long with three separate behavior clauses, but each carries information an agent would otherwise have to infer.

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

Completeness5/5

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

An output schema exists, so return shape need not be explained; the description instead covers the domain semantics (what a thread is, where it is pinned, that comments are outside the document) and the cursor/acknowledge workflow. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 75%, with token, agentName, and agentModel already documented in the schema, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no per-parameter syntax or format detail beyond the implicit cursor concept (which is a return field, not an input).

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read the discussion on a design') and enumerates the scope of what a thread contains: pin location (markup stroke, design node, frame point), resolved status, and replies. An agent can distinguish it from ui_builder_await_comments and ui_builder_post_comment purely from the description.

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?

Routes the agent to siblings: 'sequence ... is the cursor to quote to ui_builder_await_comments' and 'say you have read the rest with ui_builder_acknowledge_comment', establishing the read/await/acknowledge workflow. It stops short of an explicit when-to-use-this-instead-of-await rule, so it is strong context rather than a full decision rule.

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.