Generate a UI component gallery and open it in the browser to review and remove unnecessary components from your design system.
ギャラリーを生成してブラウザで開く。人が不要なコンポーネントを間引くための画面。
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": "open_gallery"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| site | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only states the basic action (generate and open) but does not disclose behavioral traits like side effects (e.g., whether it mutates data), permissions required, or rate limits. The description is too vague.
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?
The description is very concise (two sentences), but it lacks structure and is in Japanese, which may hinder non-Japanese agents. While brevity is positive, it sacrifices clarity and completeness.
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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no annotations, the description should cover parameter meaning and behavioral context. It fails to do so, leaving the tool's capabilities and constraints unclear.
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?
The schema has one optional parameter 'site' with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain what 'site' refers to (e.g., an ID or URL), leaving the agent guessing. This is a critical gap for correct invocation.
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?
The description clearly states it generates a gallery and opens it in the browser, with a specific purpose of thinning out unnecessary components. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_sites or search_components, though the purpose is distinct enough.
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?
No usage guidance is provided. The description fails to indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives or any prerequisites. There is no explicit 'when-not' or mention of alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.