eds-mcp-server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Lint a usage

lint_usage

Validate design system usage by checking token names, render states, and CSS for hardcoded values or inline styles, returning issues by severity.

Instructions

Validate a proposed usage against the system: token names must resolve, render states must be canonical, and CSS must be tokens-only (no hardcoded hex/rgb, no inline styles). Returns issues by severity.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "lint_usage"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`css`	No
`states`	No
`tokens`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.17.0Jul 29, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided; description covers validation rules and return format ('issues by severity'), but lacks operational details like side effects, auth, or error handling.

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?

Single sentence that front-loads purpose and efficiently lists validation criteria with no wasted words.

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?

Adequately covers validation logic and output for a straightforward tool; could mention prerequisites or concurrency but not essential given simplicity.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema has 0% coverage; description adds meaning for all three parameters (css, states, tokens) by explaining validation rules, significantly improving understanding beyond raw schema.

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?

Clearly states the tool validates a usage and lists specific checks (token resolution, canonical render states, tokens-only CSS), distinguishing it from siblings which are other design system tools.

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?

Implied usage from description (validate proposed usage), but no explicit when/when-not or alternatives among siblings like compliance_check or audit_accessibility.

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