Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Stitch MCP Server

Stitch MCP Server

by 0x-Professor
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

generate_screen

Turn a text prompt into a project UI screen, with optional device type selection for mobile, desktop, or tablet.

Instructions

Generate a UI screen from a text prompt within a project

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "projectId": "<projectId>",
      "prompt": "<prompt>"
    },
    "name": "generate_screen"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
promptYesText prompt describing the desired screen (e.g., 'A login page with email and password fields')
projectIdYesThe ID of the project to generate the screen in
deviceTypeNoTarget device type

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.6

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not explain side effects, whether it creates a new resource, what the response contains, or any auth/rate-limit considerations. The operation 'generate' is left vague.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that directly communicates the core purpose with no wasted words. It is concise and easy to grasp.

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

Completeness2/5

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

The description lacks information about expected outcomes, return structure, or preconditions. Since there is no output schema, the description should explain what 'generate' returns or does, but it does not, leaving a significant gap.

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?

All three parameters have descriptions in the input schema, covering 100% of them. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 clearly states the action ('Generate a UI screen from a text prompt within a project') with a specific verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like edit_screen and generate_variants by focusing on generation from a prompt.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description simply states what the tool does, with no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or situations where other tools would be more appropriate.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools