Retrieve a component's full HTML, CSS, and JavaScript by providing its numeric ID or permalink slug.
Get one component with full html, css and js. Pass either id or permalink.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | Numeric id | |
| permalink | No | URL slug, lower-case letters, digits and dashes. "home" is the homepage. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses that the return contains full html, css and js (as opposed to metadata only), but says nothing about read-only nature, permissions, or not-found behavior. It adds some behavioral context but leaves clear gaps.
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?
Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core purpose front-loaded before the parameter hint. Nothing is wasted.
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 simple two-parameter getter with full schema coverage, the description covers identity (id/permalink), purpose, and rough return shape. Missing only error/not-found behavior, which is minor given the tool's low complexity and lack of an output schema.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but 'Pass either id or permalink' adds the either/or selection constraint that the schema itself does not express (both params are optional with no mutual-exclusion rule). That is genuine value beyond the structured field descriptions.
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 and resource ('Get one component') and adds the payload scope ('full html, css and js'), which cleanly separates it from the plural sibling list_components. It does not explicitly name or contrast with a sibling, so it falls just short of the top tier.
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?
The only guidance is 'Pass either id or permalink', which is parameter selection, not when-to-use. There is no statement of when to reach for get_component versus list_components or the other component CRUD siblings, and no prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.