Browse a curated set of design systems with calculated HEX palettes to select a cohesive color foundation for your project.
Lista os Design Systems de elite com paletas HEX calculadas (Obsidian Linear, Cosmic Violet, Cyber Emerald, Luxe Monochrome, Midnight Amber, Swiss Editorial Light, Nordic Minimal Warm Light).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does 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 that the tool lists design systems with calculated HEX palettes, but does not disclose the return format, whether results are paginated or sorted, or whether this is a read-only operation. For a simple listing operation this is a moderate gap, but with zero annotation coverage the description should do more.
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?
A single, efficient sentence that packs genuine value: it names the exact design systems available and the HEX palette feature. The enumeration of seven design systems is useful content, not filler. No wasted words, though it is a bit long-winded with the parenthetical list.
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 0-parameter listing tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential 'what' — the design systems and their HEX palette feature. It does not describe the output shape or whether the list is exhaustive. Given the simplicity of the tool, this is adequate but could add a note about output format to fully close the gap.
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?
The tool has 0 parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing the description needs to explain about parameters since the schema is empty and fully covered. The description adds the meaningful semantic detail of what the output contains (the specific design systems), which is valuable given no params exist.
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?
States a specific verb (Lista) and resource (Design Systems de elite) with HEX palettes, and enumerates the exact design systems available. It clearly distinguishes the list operation from the sibling get_design_system by implication, though it doesn't explicitly name the alternative. The action and scope are unambiguous.
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?
No guidance on when to use this vs the sibling get_design_system. The list-vs-get distinction is implied by naming, but there is no explicit statement of when to choose one over the other, nor any prerequisites or context for selecting this tool. An agent must infer the usage pattern.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.