eds-mcp-server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Bundle components

bundle_components

Resolves component dependencies and returns an ordered set with tokens and regulatory anchors for composing a design surface.

Instructions

Resolve requires transitively and return a dependency-ordered set (deps first) plus the union of tokens + regulatory anchors. For composing a surface.

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": {
      "ids": "<ids>"
    },
    "name": "bundle_components"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ids`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.17.0Jul 29, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions resolving requires transitively but does not disclose whether this is a read operation, what happens to the input, or any side effects. No safety/permission info.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action. Could be slightly improved by integrating the last fragment, but overall concise and structured well.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Lacking essential parameter explanation and safety/usage context. For a tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description does not sufficiently fill gaps for an AI agent to use it correctly.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema coverage is 0% and the only parameter 'ids' is not explained in the description. The description implies these are component identifiers but gives no details on format, constraints, or behavior.

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?

The description clearly states it resolves transitive dependencies and returns a dependency-ordered set plus tokens and regulatory anchors. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_components or get_tokens by focusing on bundled resolution.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

Only says 'For composing a surface,' which is vague. No explicit context for when to use this tool vs alternatives like list_components or get_consumer_bundles. No exclusions or prerequisites.

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