Retrieve a ready-to-use example recipe with role-based styles, layers, and replaceable texts. Copy these styles directly into your spec to avoid creating them from scratch.
Receta de un ejemplo: estilos por rol (zonas, nodos, iconos, edges, textos), capas, textos reemplazables y su imagen. Copia los styles al spec en vez de inventarlos.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| example_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full transparency burden. It discloses the kind of content returned (styles, layers, replaceable texts, image) but does not state that this is a read-only retrieval, does not indicate any authentication or error behavior, and does not describe the response format. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero structured behavioral hints.
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 a single compact sentence that front-loads the core concept and then packs the relevant content areas into a list. It is not bloated, though the colon-separated list is dense and could be structured more cleanly.
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 get-by-id tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides useful context about what the recipe contains and how to use it (copy styles to spec). However, it omits how example_id selects the example, what the exact output structure looks like, and any edge cases or limitations, so it is not fully complete.
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% and the description never mentions example_id, its meaning, or how to obtain a valid value. The agent is left to guess that the ID selects a specific example; no semantic enrichment is provided.
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 names a specific resource ('a recipe of an example') and enumerates its contents: styles by role, layers, replaceable texts, and image. This makes the tool's purpose reasonably clear, though it relies on the tool name 'get' for the action verb and does not explicitly differentiate it from siblings like find_examples or build_from_example.
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?
It gives an actionable directive: 'Copy the styles to the spec instead of inventing them,' implying this tool is a style reference when building schemas. However, it does not state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as find_examples or build_from_example, nor does it provide explicit exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.