Generate HTML/Tailwind design mockups from requirements and design tokens. Use analyzed requirements and extracted tokens to produce ready-to-use UI code.
根据需求和 Design Tokens 生成 HTML/Tailwind 设计稿
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tokens | Yes | Design Tokens（来自 extract_tokens） | |
| outputPath | No | 输出文件路径（可选） | |
| requirement | Yes | 需求分析结果（来自 analyze_requirement） |
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 full behavioral burden. It does not say whether generating writes or overwrites a file at outputPath, what the default output behavior is, how long generation takes, or what the result contains. For a generation/write operation with zero annotation coverage this is a meaningful gap.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is efficiently structured, though the extreme brevity is partly a symptom of missing content rather than disciplined compression.
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?
Minimum viable for a 3-parameter generator whose schema is fully documented and which has no output schema. However, with nested object inputs, a file-writing outputPath, and sibling tools in a pipeline, the description leaves the agent guessing about ordering, side effects, and result shape.
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%, so all three parameters including nested objects are already documented in the schema. The description names the two main inputs but adds no format, shape, or constraint detail beyond what the schema supplies, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 names a concrete verb (生成/generate) and resource (HTML/Tailwind 设计稿), plus the two inputs it consumes (需求 and Design Tokens). It is clear what the tool produces, but it does not differentiate itself from siblings such as analyze_requirement or extract_tokens, which it actually depends on.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the other three siblings, no prerequisite ordering (e.g. must run analyze_requirement and extract_tokens first), and no note on whether it supersedes or follows audit_visual. The '来自 extract_tokens' hints at an upstream dependency in the schema but the description itself gives no workflow guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.