Skip to main content
Glama
Erebuzzz

Pixasso MCP Server

by Erebuzzz
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

pixasso_discover_intent

Read-onlyIdempotent

Initiates adaptive intent discovery for a frontend project across 16 pillars, generating tailored popup questions to clarify goals, audience, brand, and references.

Instructions

Initiate adaptive intent discovery for a frontend project across the 16 pillars and generate tailored popup questions.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
descriptionYesInitial brief or description of the project.
referenceUrlsNoOptional list of reference URLs capturing the desired feel. If omitted or empty, an optional question is included in discovery.
targetAudienceNoTarget audience or user persona if known.
hasBrandIdentityNoWhether an existing brand identity exists or needs to be synthesized from scratch.
projectArchetypeYesThe primary archetype of the frontend project.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.1

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it generates popup questions, a useful behavioral detail, but does not describe the interactive process, output format, or any side effects beyond that.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that states the tool's core action and output. No wasted words, though the jargon '16 pillars' could be opaque without context.

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?

The description is minimal for a tool that likely initiates a complex, interactive discovery process. It does not explain what the '16 pillars' are, how the popup questions are returned, or what the agent should expect as a result. With no output schema, this leaves a gap.

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 description coverage is 100%, so parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about parameter usage, making the baseline score of 3 appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb ('Initiate') and resource ('intent discovery') for a frontend project, and describes the output ('tailored popup questions'). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like generate_genome or audit_design, leaving the agent to infer the distinct role.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The word 'Initiate' hints it is a starting step, but no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided. An agent must infer its place in the workflow.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools