Retrieve the raw CSS styling for an installed Typora theme (e.g., 'github', 'night'). Use it to extract theme variables, review design rules, or feed CSS into your own workflows.
Retrieve the raw CSS styling for an installed Typora theme (e.g. 'github', 'night', 'newsprint', 'pixyll', 'whitey').
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| theme | Yes | Name of the theme (with or without .css extension). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of conveying behavior. It signals a non-destructive read operation and notes the theme must be installed, but it does not disclose behavior for invalid theme names, missing themes, or whether the CSS is returned raw/unmodified. For a simple read tool this is adequate but not rich.
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 sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and resource while using parenthetical examples efficiently. Every word contributes to understanding.
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?
For a one-parameter read tool, the description plus schema provides enough to invoke the tool correctly: pass a theme name, with or without extension, and receive raw CSS. The only minor gap is the lack of explicit guidance about error handling or behavior for an uninstalled theme, which would make it fully complete.
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 input schema already documents the single required parameter, including the useful detail that the .css extension is optional. The description's example theme names add flavor but not additional semantic meaning, so with 100% schema coverage the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 a specific verb and resource: retrieve the raw CSS styling for an installed Typora theme. It also lists concrete theme examples, which makes the tool's scope immediately understandable and distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_themes, set_theme, and install_theme.
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 makes the intended context clear—fetching raw CSS for an installed theme—and this is clearly distinct from the sibling tools. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.