Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
awwwards-mcp

awwwards-mcp

by INSANE0777
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

search_elements

Read-onlyIdempotent

Search cached Awwwards UI components—footers, menus, loaders, transitions, and micro-interactions—by query, category, and stack to find matching elements with source and project identifiers.

Instructions

Search Awwwards UI components — award-grade footers, menus, loaders, transitions, micro-interactions… — across cached gallery records plus source:"site" records derived from new SOTD winners' own Elements sections. It does not crawl the /elements/* gallery (robots.txt disallows it). Usage: pass query text; category and stack combine as AND when both are provided and are applied across the whole cached corpus before the result limit; each result carries its element slug, source and parent project identifiers.

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": "search_elements"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMax results (1-20, default 8)
queryNoFree text: what the component is or does
stackNoBuilt-with tokens, e.g. ['gsap', 'webgl']
categoryNoCategory id from the gallery taxonomy, e.g. 'footer', 'menu', 'cta', 'loading', 'mouse_interaction', '404_page'

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.15.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / limit / description
      Added value: +"Max results (1-20, default 8)"
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv1.14.0
    • changedInput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
  3. Changed1 schema field changedv1.13.0
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
  4. Addedv1.7.2

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld behavior, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description does add real value beyond them: the dual provenance of records (cached gallery records plus 'site'-scoped records derived from SOTD winners) and the pre-limit filtering order. It stops short of describing result ordering or ranking.

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?

Front-loaded with the core statement, then provenance, then usage mechanics; no filler sentences. The first sentence is dense with em-dash examples that could have been trimmed, but every clause still conveys scoping information.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully states what each result carries (element slug, source, parent project identifiers) and explains the corpus limitation. Missing only result ordering/relevance and any mention of how the 1-20 limit affects ranking, which an agent would want when results are truncated.

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 coverage is 100%, so the per-parameter definitions are already handled and baseline would be 3. The description earns above baseline by explaining how filters interact (category and stack are ANDed) and that they apply to the whole corpus before limit truncation — semantics the schema does not express. It adds no detail on query matching behavior, such as whether it is fuzzy or tokenized.

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?

States a specific verb (search) and a specific resource (Awwwards UI component elements), and even enumerates what the collection covers (footers, menus, loaders, transitions, micro-interactions). It also declares what the tool is not — it does not crawl the /elements/* gallery — which sharply bounds the corpus compared with siblings like get_element or get_site_elements.

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 'Usage:' clause gives concrete operational guidance: pass query text, and category plus stack combine as AND across the whole cached corpus before the limit is applied. It does not name alternative tools (e.g. search_motion, get_element, list_categories) or say when to prefer them, so there is clear context but no exclusion guidance.

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