eds-mcp-server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Get component contract

get_component

Retrieve the full contract for a design system component, including props, usage guidelines, accessibility, and token references.

Instructions

Full contract: purpose, props, whenToUse/whenNot, a11y, regulatory anchors, tokens, dataContract.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "get_component"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.17.0Jul 29, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

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 lists what the contract includes but omits behavioral traits (e.g., read-only, performance, permissions, error handling). Minimal behavioral disclosure.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the core concept ('Full contract') and itemizes contents. Slightly better structure could improve readability, but it is efficient without waste.

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?

Given 29 siblings, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is insufficient. It lacks format details, error behavior, and any guidance on how to interpret the contract. Missing key completeness for a complex tool.

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 description adds no meaning to the sole parameter 'id' – it does not explain what 'id' refers to (presumably component ID). Parameter semantics are entirely absent.

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?

The description clearly states 'Full contract' and lists specific content areas (purpose, props, whenToUse/whenNot, a11y, regulatory anchors, tokens, dataContract). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_tokens or get_data_contract which are more narrow.

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?

The description does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'whenToUse/whenNot' as part of the returned content, but gives no explicit usage advice for the tool itself.

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