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_token_extract

Extract design tokens like colors and spacing from CSS, SCSS, Tailwind, JSON, or Figma source code to standardize your design system.

Instructions

Extract design tokens from existing code.

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": {
      "source": "<source>"
    },
    "name": "design_token_extract"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sourceYesSource code to parse.
source_formatNoFormat hint (css|scss|tailwind|json|figma).css

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.1

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'extract design tokens' without explaining the extraction process, side effects, or limitations (e.g., file size limits, output format). This is insufficient for safe invocation.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with no extraneous words. However, it could be more informative without sacrificing conciseness, earning a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

Despite having an output schema (which reduces the need to document return values), the description is too sparse. It does not explain what 'extract' means, what kind of tokens are found, or how the tool handles multiple files or edge cases. For a tool with 2 parameters and sibling tools, more context is needed.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters (source, source_format). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action (extract) and the resource (design tokens) with a specific source (existing code). It distinguishes from sibling tools like design_a11y_check and design_component_create, which have different purposes.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to prefer it over other design tools. The description lacks context about prerequisites or typical scenarios.

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