Skip to main content
Glama

Tseha

by io.tseha

Search components

search_components
Read-only

Searches the components of every package assigned to the project by use case, behavior, or description, and returns up to 10 ranked matches with a relevance score. Read-only. Use it when you can describe what the UI must do but do not know the component name. The query is free-text describing the need, such as "date range picker" or "dismissible inline warning" - not a component name, not a glob, and not a props expression. Do not use it when the exact name is known (get_component is direct and returns the full spec) or when you want the complete catalog (list_components). Semantic ranking needs AI features on the Team plan or above; on other plans it falls back to name and import-path matching and the score is null. No close match returns an empty result list, not an error.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryYesFree-text description of the need - a use case, behavior, or purpose, e.g. "date range picker". Not a component name and not a glob.
project_idYesUUID as returned by list_projects - not the project name, title, or slug, and not guessable. Fetch it once and reuse the same id across tools. An id outside the caller's organization returns "Project not found or access denied" rather than empty data, and a project withheld by a plan limit returns a plan error that retrying cannot clear. It bounds the search to the packages assigned to this project, so the same query returns different matches for different projects.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / project_id / description
      Previous value: -"Project ID from list_projects"New value: +"UUID as returned by list_projects - not the project name, title, or slug, and not guessable. Fetch it once and reuse the same id across tools. An id outside the caller's organization returns \"Project not found or access denied\" rather than empty data, and a project withheld by a plan limit returns a plan error that retrying cannot clear. It bounds the search to the packages assigned to this project, so the same query returns different matches for different projects."
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / query / description
      Added value: +"Free-text description of the need - a use case, behavior, or purpose, e.g. \"date range picker\". Not a component name and not a glob."
  3. First observed

TDQS

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses ranking behavior, the 10-result limit, relevance scoring, semantic-search fallback on lower plans with a null score, and empty-result behavior (empty list, not an error). This gives the agent realistic expectations about return values and plan-dependent behavior, and it does not contradict the annotations.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is dense but not padded; each sentence carries a distinct piece of guidance: what it does, read-only nature, when to use it, query format, exclusions, plan-based fallback, and error behavior. It front-loads the core purpose and follows with necessary constraints and caveats.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description still covers the return shape, scoring behavior, empty behavior, and plan-dependent variations. It also covers the most important project_id hazards that could otherwise trip up an agent. The combination of annotation(s), schema coverage, and description leaves no critical gap for invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Although the schema already documents both parameters with 100% coverage, the description adds meaningful usage semantics beyond field names: queries must describe use case/need, not component names; project_id must be fetched from list_projects, is not guessable, must be reused, bounds results to a project, and can yield access-denied vs plan-specific failures. This materially helps correct invocation.

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 a specific verb and resource: searching the components assigned to a project by use case/behavior/description, returning up to 10 ranked matches with a relevance score. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from get_component and list_components, so an agent can tell it apart without reading sibling schemas.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives an explicit when-to-use condition ('when you can describe what the UI must do but do not know the component name') and clear when-not-to-use guidance with named alternatives ('do not use it when the exact name is known... get_component is direct' and 'list_components' for a full catalog). The text also warns about free-text query semantics versus globs/props expressions.

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

All Tseha 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

A4.8/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct resource and role: enumeration (list_*), lookup (get_*), search, updates, and metadata. Even the closely related list_components and search_components are sharply separated by exact-name enumeration versus ranked by-use-case search.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern, using either list_* for enumerations or get_* for single-item or metadata lookups. Naming choices clearly signal the operation type and resource without exceptions.

Tool Count5/5

With 9 tools, the server is well-scoped for read-only access to a project's design system, component catalog, standards, and style tokens. Each tool has a distinct responsibility and none feel redundant or superfluous.

Completeness5/5

The surface fully covers the read-only domain: project discovery, package listing, component enumeration and search, component details, version updates, standards, and style tokens. It leaves no obvious dead ends for an agent needing design system information.

Resources