my-design MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes what the tool returns (tokens and theme info) and a usage recommendation for code generation, but it lacks critical behavioral details such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or the format/structure of the returned data. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose. It uses two sentences: one for the tool's function and one for usage advice. There's minimal waste, though the second sentence could be seen as slightly extraneous if the focus is purely on tool invocation rather than code generation best practices.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is partially complete. It covers the purpose and includes a usage tip, but it lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., read/write nature, data format) and doesn't compensate for the absence of an output schema. This makes it adequate for basic understanding but insufficient for full agent confidence without additional context.

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 has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both parameters ('type' and 'theme'), including optional values and defaults. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema; it doesn't explain parameter interactions, provide examples, or clarify edge cases. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline is 3 even without param info in the description.

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 the tool's purpose: '获取 my-design 的 Design Token（设计令牌）和主题信息' (Get Design Tokens and theme information for my-design). It specifies the resources (color, spacing, radius, font, shadow tokens) and the scope (light/dark theme differences). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its siblings (like component_details or component_list), which might also involve design-related data, so it doesn't achieve full sibling differentiation.

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 provides implied usage guidance by stating '生成代码时应优先使用 token（CSS 变量），避免硬编码颜色、间距等值' (When generating code, prioritize using tokens (CSS variables) and avoid hardcoding values like colors and spacing). This suggests the tool is for code generation contexts. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., vs. component_details for component-specific tokens) or provide clear exclusions, leaving some ambiguity.

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