Find design tokens by substring match on token names and categories, with an optional category filter and result limit, to locate the right SCSS token for themes or components.
Substring search across token names and categories.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | ||
| category | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose case sensitivity, match semantics (prefix vs anywhere in the string), paging behavior, or the default/effective value of limit, leaving the agent to guess at runtime behavior.
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 with no filler, which is well sized for the tool. It is efficient, though the brevity contributes to the under-specification scored elsewhere.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, and three undocumented parameters, the description does too little. It omits the return shape, result ordering, limit default, and matching behavior an agent needs to call it correctly.
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 description coverage is 0% across three parameters. The phrase 'token names and categories' loosely maps to query and category, but the limit parameter (1-500) is entirely unexplained and no format or matching rules are given for query.
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 concrete verb (substring search) and resource (token names and categories), which is meaningfully distinct from the sibling list_tokens (enumeration) and get_token (single fetch). It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings as alternatives, so it is clear but not fully disambiguating.
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 word 'search' implies a lookup use case, but the description never states when to use this instead of list_tokens, get_token, or search_functions. No prerequisites, exclusions, or routing guidance are given for 30 sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.