eds-mcp-server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Search consumer components

search_consumer_components

Search consumer components by keyword in names, summaries, domains, and anchors to find design system tokens and contracts.

Instructions

Keyword search across consumer names, summaries, domains and anchors, e.g. "paywall", "child", "cancel".

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": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "search_consumer_components"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`query`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.17.0Jul 29, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It identifies the tool as a keyword search but does not explain case sensitivity, pagination, result format, or whether it is read-only. The description is insufficient for an agent to understand all behaviors.

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?

The description is a single sentence with examples, containing no filler. Every word adds value, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given one simple parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but lacks details on return type, sorting, or limits. It meets the minimum viable threshold but could be more complete.

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?

The description provides example queries ('paywall', 'child', 'cancel'), which adds meaning beyond the schema's bare type definition. However, it does not describe the expected format, supported operators, or required syntax, and schema coverage is 0%, so the description partially compensates but not fully.

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 'keyword search across consumer names, summaries, domains and anchors' with concrete examples, making the tool's purpose specific. However, it does not explicitly state that it returns a list of matching consumer components, leaving slight ambiguity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_components or find_consumer_by_anchor. It only implies usage via the search functionality, but lacks explicit context or exclusions.

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