Circuitry MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It effectively describes the return structure (fonts, colorPalette, buttons, patterns, theme) and the tool's read-only nature (implied by 'Get'), but lacks details on potential limitations (e.g., rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions). However, it adds value by explaining the extracted data categories and their use in design context.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: the first sentence clearly states the purpose, followed by usage guidelines and a detailed breakdown of returned context in bullet points. The tip at the end adds practical value without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no wasted text.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is largely complete: it explains what the tool does, when to use it, and details the return structure. However, without an output schema, it could benefit from more specifics on return formats (e.g., data types), but the bullet points provide sufficient context for a read-only tool.

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 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately omits parameter details, focusing instead on the tool's purpose and output. A baseline of 4 is applied since no parameters exist, and the description doesn't attempt to explain non-existent inputs.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: 'Get design context (fonts, colors, patterns, buttons) extracted from all screens.' It specifies the exact resources (fonts, colors, patterns, buttons) and the scope (all screens), distinguishing it from siblings like 'designer.getActive' or 'designer.getMode' which focus on different aspects of design state.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'Use this to understand the user's design style before generating HTML components.' It also names a specific alternative ('html.create') and includes a tip linking usage to that sibling tool, clearly differentiating it from unrelated siblings like 'screen.capture' or 'layout.analyze'.

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