Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
SIN-Code-Frontend-Design-Skill

SIN-Code-Frontend-Design-Skill

by OpenSIN-Code
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

design_responsive_test

Test responsive design by generating breakpoints and identifying the current viewport breakpoint based on width.

Instructions

Generate responsive breakpoints and identify current breakpoint.

Tool call template

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": "design_responsive_test"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
include_cssNoIf true, include a full CSS payload.
viewport_widthNoCurrent viewport width in pixels.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.1

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, modifies state, or requires authentication. The simple verb 'generate' implies a read-like operation but is ambiguous.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is a single sentence with no wasted words, but it is too brief and lacks detail that would help an agent. It could be more informative without sacrificing conciseness.

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 that an output schema exists (per context signals), the description need not detail return values. However, the description is insufficient for a tool with 2 parameters and no annotations; it fails to provide context on tool behavior or usage scenarios.

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%, with both parameters documented. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema definitions. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it generates responsive breakpoints and identifies the current breakpoint. The verb-resource pair is specific and distinguishes this tool from siblings like design_a11y_check or design_component_create, though the output's exact nature could be more precise.

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 vs alternatives, no prerequisites, and no context about typical use cases. It is a bare statement of functionality.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools