get_componentReturns full component documentation—import statement, props with allowed values and defaults, and a usage example. Use before coding to ensure correct usage.
Returns the full documentation of a component: import statement, props with their allowed values and defaults, and a usage example. Use it before writing code with the component.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Component name, e.g. Button |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the return shape and implies a read-only lookup, but says nothing about what happens for an unknown component name, whether names are case-sensitive, or any error/permission behavior.
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?
Two sentences, zero filler, and the returned content is front-loaded before the usage cue. Every clause earns its place.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description must (and does) describe the return value: import statement, props with defaults, and an example. The only gap is failure behavior for invalid component names, which is minor for a documentation lookup.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100% and the single parameter already documents itself with an example ('Button'), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no syntax, casing, or naming-convention detail beyond the schema.
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?
States a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('documentation of a component'), then enumerates the exact payload: import statement, props with allowed values and defaults, and a usage example. This lets an agent distinguish it from list_components and search_components, though the overlap with get_usage_example is left for the reader to resolve.
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?
'Use it before writing code with the component' gives a concrete trigger condition for calling the tool. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g., get_usage_example for example-only lookups) or stating when not to use it, so it is clear context without exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.