teguma

get_constraints

Retrieve layout constraints and design guardrails from a Penpot file to prevent layout overflow and brand inconsistency before UI generation.

Instructions

Get layout constraints and design guardrails for a Penpot file. Returns spacing scale, color tokens, typography scale, and MUST/MUST NOT rules. Call this BEFORE generating any UI to avoid layout overflow and brand inconsistency.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "fileId": "<fileId>"
    },
    "name": "get_constraints"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`fileId`	Yes	Penpot file ID
`pageId`	No	Specific page ID (optional, defaults to all)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 29, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations present; description carries full burden. It discloses read-only nature and key outputs but omits details like error handling or side effects. Adequate for a simple read operation but not exhaustive.

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?

Two-sentence description is succinct, front-loads purpose and output, then adds usage guidance. No filler or redundancy.

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?

Covers purpose, key outputs, and when to call. Lacks output schema but describes return contents sufficiently. Minor gap: no mention of response format, but acceptable for tool of this complexity.

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% with clear parameter descriptions. Description adds no further semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose5/5

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

Description clearly states the tool retrieves layout constraints and design guardrails, specifying exact return types (spacing, colors, typography, rules). Distinguishes from siblings like get_tokens by including MUST/MUST NOT rules, making purpose distinct.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Provides explicit directive to call this tool before generating UI to prevent layout issues. Lacks explicit alternatives but contextually fits as a prerequisite step among siblings.

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