Select a design archetype to receive curated design tokens with tinted neutrals and optical type, enabling human-centered styling that avoids generic AI output.
Returns curated design tokens (Editorial, Dark Craft, Swiss, Brutalist) with tinted neutrals & optical type.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| archetype | No | Design archetype |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly signals a read-only retrieval operation by saying 'Returns', but it does not mention what happens when the optional archetype parameter is omitted, whether a default archetype exists, or what the exact response format will be.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It loses a point for the minor inconsistency between the listed style names and the actual enum values, which introduces avoidable ambiguity.
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 low complexity, one optional parameter, and full schema coverage, the description is minimally viable. However, because there is no output schema, the description should more fully describe the returned token structure or default behavior to leave no ambiguity for an agent.
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 for the single parameter is 100%, so the schema already documents 'archetype' and its enum options. The description adds some human-readable style context, but it partially conflicts with the enum labels and does not explain the meaning or effect of each archetype.
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 states a clear verb-resource pair: it 'Returns curated design tokens' for named design styles. It is specific enough to distinguish this tool from the given siblings, though the style names listed ('Swiss', 'Brutalist') do not exactly match the enum values ('swissMinimal', 'neoBrutalist') and omit 'warmHumanist'.
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 is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives, when not to use it, or what context it belongs to. The description implies a lookup use case but never states it explicitly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.