Skip to main content
Glama

Standout

by io.standoutmcp

critique_design

Brutal, specific design critique of an existing page: automatic AI-slop detection (banned gradients, centered-hero defaults, h-screen bugs, cliche copy) plus a prioritized fix list with exact values. When you pass a URL, the response also includes LIVE SCREENSHOTS of the rendered page at phone (390px) and desktop (1440px) widths — look at them and fix what fails visually — and saves an unlisted SHAREABLE SCORE REPORT (score + category breakdown + screenshots) whose link you should give to the user. Always prefer passing the published URL over raw source for these reasons.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlNoPublic URL of the page to critique
sourceNoRaw HTML/CSS/JSX of the page
directionNoDirection pack id the page implements (e.g. ink-and-paper). ALWAYS pass this when the page was built from get_design_direction so the critique respects the design system instead of fighting it.
descriptionNoDescription of the current design if no source available

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. It discloses the side effect of saving an unlisted shareable score report, the inclusion of live screenshots, and the prioritized fix list. However, 'these reasons' for preferring URL is vague, and it doesn't clarify what happens if only source is passed, leaving a minor transparency gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single dense paragraph with three long sentences, including a run-on first sentence. It packs a lot of information but lacks visual structure (e.g., bullets or separators). It is not as concise as it could be for the amount of content.

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?

Given the tool's complexity and no output schema, the description adequately explains the returns (fix list, screenshots, score report) and what to do with them. It misses explaining the direction parameter's role (though the schema covers it), but overall the critical contextual information is present.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by prioritizing URL over source ('Always prefer passing the published URL') and indicating that screenshots occur when a URL is passed. This enriches understanding of the url and source parameters.

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 opens with 'Brutal, specific design critique of an existing page' — a clear verb+resource pairing. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (critique_ui, critique_similarity) by detailing unique features: AI-slop detection, prioritized fix list, live screenshots, and a shareable score report.

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?

Provides explicit operational guidance: 'Always prefer passing the published URL over raw source' and explains the URL triggers screenshots. It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use this tool, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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

All Standout toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools have unclear boundaries: build_from_reference and build_from_reference_v2 serve nearly the same purpose, make_it_standout and polish_and_prove overlap heavily, and get_design_direction, synthesize_direction_from_references, and build_from_reference_v2 all produce design directions. The long descriptions help, but an agent could easily select the wrong tool.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (e.g., get_design_direction, search_references, watch_site). Minor deviations like client_report, make_it_standout, and polish_and_prove are acceptable but slightly break the pattern.

Tool Count2/5

30 tools is too many for a design toolkit, exceeding the 25+ threshold for 'too many'. Many 'get' tools could be consolidated (e.g., get_hero_concept, get_motion_recipes, get_asset_pack could be one tool). The count feels bloated rather than well-scoped.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers the full design/build/critique/report/watch lifecycle well, from direction and sections to client reports and site monitoring. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no explicit 'update' or 'delete' for references), but these are not critical to the core workflow.

Resources