StyleTrace
Server Configuration
Describes the environment variables required to run the server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Instructions
Guidance the server publishes about itself, which clients place ahead of the tool catalog so the model reads it before choosing anything.
This server publishes no instructions, or was last inspected before Glama recorded them.
Capabilities
Features and capabilities supported by this server
Protocol revision2025-11-25
| Capability | Details |
|---|---|
| tools | {
"listChanged": true
} |
Tools
Functions exposed to the LLM to take actions
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| analyze_website_styleA | Analyze exact public website URLs, public image URLs, or a mix of both and extract a compact design grammar. StyleTrace analyzes only the references you provide. Evidence can be omitted, exported to a sidecar file, or inlined. |
| review_generated_styleA | Review generated HTML or a generated image URL against a StyleTrace result, checking invariant matches, drift, and likely style violations. |
Prompts
Interactive templates invoked by user choice
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No prompts | |
Resources
Contextual data attached and managed by the client
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No resources | |
TDQS
Scored across 2 tools
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one extracts design grammar from references, the other verifies generated output against an extracted style. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.
Both tool names follow the same verb_noun pattern in snake_case: 'analyze_website_style' and 'review_generated_style'. The naming is consistent and predictable.
With only 2 tools, the set is on the thin side. For a server focused on style analysis and review, this minimal set covers the core workflow but feels slightly sparse compared to typical servers.
The two tools provide a complete lifecycle for the intended domain: analyze a style from references, then review generated output against that style. There are no obvious gaps in the stated workflow.