shadcn-ui-mcp-server

get_block

Read-only

Retrieve the source code for any shadcn/ui v4 block, such as calendar-01 or dashboard-01, to integrate ready-made UI components into your project.

Instructions

Get source code for a specific shadcn/ui v4 block (e.g., calendar-01, dashboard-01)

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": {
      "blockName": "<blockName>"
    },
    "name": "get_block"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`blockName`	Yes	Name of the block (e.g., "calendar-01", "dashboard-01", "login-02")
`includeComponents`	No	Whether to include component files for complex blocks (default: true)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.0Aug 21, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true, and the description aligns with that. It adds useful context about the block being v4 and examples, but does not disclose what the returned source code looks like or any edge-case behavior. Since annotations cover the safety profile, this is acceptable but not rich.

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 concise sentence that provides key details and examples without waste. It is well-front-loaded.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and usage. It could mention the return format or includeComponents behavior, but the schema already covers the parameter. Overall adequate.

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 100% with both parameters well-described. The description adds example values for blockName but does not add meaning beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Get') and resource ('source code for a specific shadcn/ui v4 block'), with clear example values. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_blocks and get_component by focusing on fetching a single block's source.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when to use the tool (when you need source code for a specific block) and provides examples. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, though the context is clear enough.

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

Deploy Server