Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
refero-design-mcp

refero-design-mcp

by DarCas
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Get design.md for a style

refero_get_design_md
Read-onlyIdempotent

Render a style ID as a design.md document, requesting only needed sections to stay within budget; omit sections for the full document.

Instructions

Render a style as a design.md document. The sections argument is honoured: request only the sections you need to stay within budget. Without it you get the whole document, truncated on a structural boundary.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
refreshNoBypass the local cache and refetch (conditional request).
sectionsNoWhich sections to include, in any order: overview, colors, typography, type_scale, spacing, surfaces, imagery, principles, components, similar, custom. Omit for everything.
style_idYesStyle UUID, e.g. "a73148b9-449b-42cd-9f38-86ef694f500e".

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.1.0
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
  2. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: that output is truncated on a structural boundary when sections is omitted, which is important context an agent cannot get from annotations or schema.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool produces and followed by the operational constraint. No filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema exists, and the description does characterize the return (a design.md document, possibly truncated). A brief note on cache/refresh interaction or size limits would close the remaining gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the sections enum is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that sections is honoured and that omitting it yields everything, but adds no syntax or ordering detail beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (render) and resource (a style as a design.md document), which is a distinct output format. However, it never contrasts with the sibling refero_get_style, so an agent must infer which of the two returns what.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives implied usage guidance around budget (request only the sections you need) and the default full-document behavior, but never states when to pick this tool over refero_get_style or refero_match_style.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools