eds-mcp-server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Scaffold a component

scaffold_component

Generates a paste-ready, method-compliant component skeleton from a contract, including ds-section HTML, scoped tokens-only CSS, delegated JS, and the four-cell register.

Instructions

Generate a paste-ready, method-compliant skeleton (ds-section HTML + scoped tokens-only CSS + delegated reduced-motion-safe JS + the four-cell register) from a component contract. The killer tool: the agent gets correct structure, not invented structure.

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": "scaffold_component"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.17.0Jul 29, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. It lists generated artifacts but does not disclose side effects (e.g., file creation), permissions needed, or behavior if the contract is invalid. Some context is added but insufficient.

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 concise sentences, the first dense with essential info, the second promotional but brief. No wasted words, though the promotional tone slightly reduces clarity.

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?

For a complex scaffold generator without output schema, the description omits return format, prerequisites, error handling, and explanations of jargon like 'four-cell register'. Incomplete for an autonomous agent.

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 0% for the single 'id' parameter. The description mentions 'from a component contract' implying id refers to the contract, but does not explicitly define the parameter, leaving ambiguity.

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 uses a specific verb 'Generate' and details the exact output: 'paste-ready, method-compliant skeleton' listing HTML, CSS, JS, and register. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_component (retrieve) and scaffold_test (test scaffold).

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?

The description implies the tool should be used to avoid 'invented structure', but does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternatives like get_component for existing components.

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