Magic UI MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'provides implementation details,' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify if it's safe, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what format the details are in. The description is too vague about the tool's behavior beyond its basic purpose.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose and scope. It's front-loaded with the key action ('Provides implementation details') and lists the components without redundancy. However, it could be slightly more structured by grouping components or adding brief context, but it's still very concise.

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?

Given the tool has no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'implementation details' entail (e.g., code snippets, configurations, usage examples), the format of the output, or any behavioral aspects like error handling. For a tool with such sparse structured data, the description should provide more context to be fully helpful.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it appropriately doesn't mention any. This meets the baseline for tools with no parameters, as it avoids unnecessary information.

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?

The description clearly states what the tool does ('Provides implementation details') and specifies the exact components it covers (bento-grid, dock, file-tree, etc.). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on layout components rather than backgrounds, buttons, devices, etc. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with similar tools (none exist in siblings), so it's not a perfect 5.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lists the components it covers but doesn't explain why one would choose this over other tools like getUIComponents or getWidgets, nor does it mention any prerequisites or contextual triggers for usage.

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