stitch-pro-mcp

Create Design System

sp_design_create

Generate a design system (colors, typography, spacing) from a brand description. Returns DESIGN.md and ID for UI generation.

Instructions

Generate a design system (colors, typography, spacing, rules) from a brand description. Returns a DESIGN.md and an ID for use in generation calls.

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": {
      "name": "<name>",
      "brandDescription": "<brandDescription>"
    },
    "name": "sp_design_create"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	Name for the design system
`brandDescription`	Yes	Natural language description of the brand
`industry`	No	Industry (e.g., fintech, healthcare, e-commerce)
`personality`	No	Brand personality traits
`primaryColor`	No	Primary brand color (hex)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0May 26, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations indicate non-readOnly and non-destructive. The description adds that it creates a design system and returns a file and ID. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful return info, though it could mention that multiple calls create multiple systems.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two concise sentences front-loaded with action and key output. No redundant or irrelevant information.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers core functionality and output format. It lacks details on error handling or storage, but for a creation tool it is mostly complete.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description mentions 'colors, typography, spacing, rules' which aligns with design system content but does not add additional meaning beyond the schema descriptions for the parameters.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the verb 'Generate' and the resource 'design system', specifies inputs (brand description) and outputs (DESIGN.md and ID). It distinguishes from sibling tools like sp_design_apply (apply) and sp_generate (generic).

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description implies usage context (from brand description, for generation calls) but does not explicitly state when not to use or compare with alternatives. It's clear but not fully explicit.

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

Deploy Server