Look up a design token by name to see its category, required flag, sample values across all themes, and referencing mixins or functions.
Return one token: category, required flag, sample values across all themes, and the list of mixins/functions that reference it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Token name with or without the leading "--" (e.g. "--action-primary-default" or "action-primary-default"). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does well: it names the category, required flag, cross-theme sample values, and referencing mixins/functions. It does not mention permissions or side effects, but for a read-style lookup the disclosed return shape is genuinely informative.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence that communicates the retrieval action and the returned payload with no filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a one-parameter lookup tool with no annotations or output schema, the description adequately covers both the operation and the return contents. Only the behavior on an unknown name is unaddressed, a minor gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and the schema already explains the name parameter including the optional leading '--'. The description adds no additional parameter guidance, so the baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (Return) and resource (one token), and enumerates the returned fields. It clearly reads as single-item retrieval by name, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with list_tokens/search_tokens siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The singular 'one token' implies fetching a specific token rather than listing or searching, and the sibling names make the get/search/list distinction inferable. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement and no alternative named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.