compose-bridge

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

get_all_token_groups

List all semantic token groups across design system objects to inspect high-level grouping before examining individual tokens.

Instructions

Read-only. Returns ALL semantic token groups in the project (e.g., 'Actions', 'Dashboard', 'Settings').

What it does: Lists all token groups discovered across design system objects.
When to use: To inspect the high-level semantic grouping of design tokens.
When NOT to use: Use list_tokens for individual tokens. Groups are based on object declarations in AppStrings/DesignSystem.
Side effects: Read-only. No files modified.
Parameters: None.
Returns:
  JSON string with group names, member token counts, and parent objects.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 19, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses read-only safety and that no files are modified, plus the return shape (group names, member counts, parent objects). It stops short of some details like ordering or whether results are exhaustive across workspace boundaries, but the safety profile is well covered.

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?

Well structured and front-loaded with the key 'Read-only. Returns ALL...' statement. Minor redundancy: 'Read-only' is stated at the top and repeated under 'Side effects', and the return format is listed despite an output schema existing.

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 no-param read-only listing tool, the description covers purpose, usage, safety, and return shape. An output schema exists, so the explicit 'Returns' block is somewhat redundant but harmless, and no critical invocation info is missing.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters and the description explicitly states 'Parameters: None.' Baseline is 4 for a 0-param tool, and nothing here contradicts or adds 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?

States a specific verb (returns/lists) and resource (semantic token groups) with concrete examples ('Actions', 'Dashboard', 'Settings'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from list_tokens, so an agent can tell them apart without opening either schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Provides explicit 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' sections, and names the alternative (list_tokens) for individual tokens with the reason (groups are based on object declarations). Routing is fully specified.

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