list_design_systemsReturn the catalogue of design systems Layero ships with.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds the scope that it returns only design systems that ship with Layero, which is useful context. However, it does not disclose any other behavioral traits such as result ordering, pagination, or whether the catalogue is static or dynamic.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is very simple with no parameters, strong annotations, and an output schema. The description provides sufficient context about the return value and scope. No additional details are required.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema covers everything. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies. The description adds no parameter-specific information, but none is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns the catalogue of design systems that ship with Layero. The verb 'Return' plus the resource 'catalogue of design systems' with the scope 'Layero ships with' is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_domains and list_structures.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implicitly indicates use when you need to see built-in design systems, but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. No exclusions or comparisons to sibling list tools are mentioned, so usage context is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action. The deploy lifecycle is cleanly separated into cancel, retry, rollback, diagnose, logs, list, and status, while the site_* tools each answer a different question. Even the two compose_landing tools are explicitly differentiated for model vs. internal use.
Tool names mix verb-first patterns (check_domain, list_deploys, connect_analytics) with noun-first patterns (site_issues, deploy_logs, env_vars), and some are bare verbs (rollback, whoami). The naming is descriptive and readable, but not consistent enough to predict the style for a new tool.
27 tools exceeds the typical well-scoped range and pushes into 'too many' territory. While the server covers a broad platform scope, many tools are highly specialized (check_copy, site_screenshot), and an agent may be overwhelmed by the sheer number of choices. Consolidation could reduce the load.
The core lifecycle is solid: compose, publish, monitor, diagnose, and rollback, with supporting tools for domains, analytics, performance, and content inspection. However, there are no delete/remove operations for projects, domains, or integrations, and integration management is limited to adding. These are minor gaps that agents can work around, but they are notable for a full platform.