Font Design MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

project_inspect

Read-onlyIdempotent

Inspect a font project master to retrieve design contracts, glyphs, spacing, compositions, history, and metadata. Filter by glyph IDs or sections; paginated for large collections.

Instructions

Inspect a master with optional sections and glyph_ids focus. Full collections are paginated; pagination lists each continuation. Use sections=['design'] for the complete design contract without spacing/compositions.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "project_id": "<project_id>"
    },
    "name": "project_inspect"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`limit`	No
`detail`	No	summary
`offset`	No
`revision`	No
`sections`	No
`glyph_ids`	No
`master_id`	No	default
`project_id`	Yes
`include_total`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ok`	Yes
`data`	No
`error`	No
`changed`	No
`summary`	Yes
`revision`	No
`warnings`	No
`project_id`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedv0.6.0Sep 12, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / glyph_ids

Added value: +{
+  "items": {
+    "pattern": "^(?:\\.notdef|[a-zA-Z_][a-zA-Z0-9_.]{0,62})$",
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "maxItems": 32,
+  "type": "array"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / master_id

Added value: +{
+  "default": "default",
+  "pattern": "^[a-zA-Z0-9_][a-zA-Z0-9_.-]{0,63}$",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / sections

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "items": {
+        "enum": [
+          "metadata",
+          "design",
+          "glyphs",
+          "spacing",
+          "compositions",
+          "history"
+        ],
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "maxItems": 6,
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null
+}

Changed16 schema fields changedv0.4.3Sep 9, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / detail
```
Added value: +{
+  "default": "summary",
+  "enum": [
+    "summary",
+    "full"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}
```
- addedInput schema / properties / include_total
```
Added value: +{
+  "default": false,
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
```
- removedInput schema / properties / limit / title
```
Removed value: -"Limit"
```
- removedInput schema / properties / offset / title
```
Removed value: -"Offset"
```
- removedInput schema / properties / project_id / title
```
Removed value: -"Project Id"
```
- removedInput schema / properties / revision / title
```
Removed value: -"Revision"
```
- removedInput schema / title
```
Removed value: -"Page"
```
- removedOutput schema / properties / changed / title
```
Removed value: -"Changed"
```
- removedOutput schema / properties / data / title
```
Removed value: -"Data"
```
- removedOutput schema / properties / error / title
```
Removed value: -"Error"
```
- removedOutput schema / properties / ok / title
```
Removed value: -"Ok"
```
- removedOutput schema / properties / project_id / title
```
Removed value: -"Project Id"
```
- removedOutput schema / properties / revision / title
```
Removed value: -"Revision"
```
- removedOutput schema / properties / summary / title
```
Removed value: -"Summary"
```
- removedOutput schema / properties / warnings / title
```
Removed value: -"Warnings"
```
- removedOutput schema / title
```
Removed value: -"Result"
```
First observedv0.1.0Sep 8, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety bar is low. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond the annotations: full collections are paginated and each continuation is listed, and the design section's scope is qualified. Return format is not described, hence not a 5.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and no filler. It could be marginally tighter but every sentence carries content.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and pagination is disclosed. However, for a 9-parameter tool with zero schema coverage and an enum-driven detail mode, the description leaves too many parameters and the summary-vs-full behavior unaddressed to be considered complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% across 9 parameters, so the description must carry the load. It only addresses two of them (sections, glyph_ids) and leaves limit, offset, detail, revision, master_id, and include_total entirely unexplained, including which value of detail the pagination note applies to.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a concrete verb (Inspect) and resource (a master), plus the scoping axes (sections, glyph_ids). An agent can distinguish it from project_open/project_create, but the description never says it is a font-master inspection or names a sibling to differentiate against, so it stops short of a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

One explicit usage hint is given: sections=['design'] yields the complete design contract without spacing/compositions. That is real guidance for one path, but there is no when-to-use-this-vs-project_open, no exclusion conditions, and no guidance on detail/offset/limit selection.

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