Skip to main content
Glama
MarcusViniciusBarcelos

UX/UI Tools for React + Material-UI

by MarcusViniciusBarcelos
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
JavaScript
Hybrid

get_ux_checklist

Generate UX/UI validation checklists for React components using Material-UI patterns and established design principles.

Instructions

Retorna checklist de UX/UI para validação

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • index.js:608-637 (handler)
    Handler implementation for the 'get_ux_checklist' tool. Returns a static text content containing a comprehensive UX/UI checklist for React/MUI components.
          case 'get_ux_checklist':
        return {
          content: [
            {
              type: 'text',
              text: `
**Checklist UX/UI - better2 Frontend**

Antes de finalizar qualquer componente visual:

- [ ] Responsivo (mobile, tablet, desktop)
- [ ] Touch targets ≥ 44px
- [ ] Todos botões/ícones têm tooltip
- [ ] Loading states implementados
- [ ] Mensagens de erro claras
- [ ] Theme.spacing usado
- [ ] Alpha() para transparências
- [ ] Transições suaves
- [ ] Acessibilidade (tab navigation)
- [ ] Testado em mobile real
- [ ] Scrollbar customizada (se lista/scroll)
- [ ] Validação em tempo real (se formulário)
- [ ] Botão cancelar (se modal/dialog)
- [ ] Feedback visual em ações
- [ ] Agrupamento lógico de elementos
              `,
            },
          ],
        };
  • index.js:497-504 (registration)
    Registration of the 'get_ux_checklist' tool in the ListTools response, defining its name, description, and input schema (no required parameters).
    {
  name: 'get_ux_checklist',
  description: 'Retorna checklist de UX/UI para validação',
  inputSchema: {
    type: 'object',
    properties: {},
  },
},
  • index.js:500-503 (schema)
    Input schema for the 'get_ux_checklist' tool, which requires no parameters (empty properties object).
    inputSchema: {
  type: 'object',
  properties: {},
},

Tool Definition Quality

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns a UX/UI checklist for validation, but it doesn't describe what the checklist contains, how it's formatted, whether it's static or dynamic, or any operational constraints like rate limits or authentication needs, leaving significant gaps.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand at a glance.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what the checklist includes, its format, or how it's used in validation, which are crucial for an AI agent to effectively invoke and interpret the tool's output.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool has 0 parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it appropriately avoids unnecessary details, earning a high baseline score for this dimension.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Retorna') and resource ('checklist de UX/UI para validação'), making it understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'apply_nielsen_heuristic' or 'apply_complete_ux', which might also relate to UX validation, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'apply_nielsen_heuristic' or 'apply_complete_ux' that might serve similar UX-related purposes, there is no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions for this tool's usage.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/MarcusViniciusBarcelos/uiux-tools-react-mui'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server