Basecoat UI MCP Server

Does 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 the tool 'gets' code, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify any behavioral traits like whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns static or dynamic content, or if it's idempotent. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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: 'Get Basecoat CSS setup code with CDN links.' It's front-loaded with the core purpose, has zero wasted words, and is appropriately sized for a simple tool. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's function.

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's simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does, but lacks context on usage, behavioral details, or output format. For a tool that likely returns code snippets, the absence of an output schema means the description should ideally hint at the return type, but it doesn't. This makes it complete enough for basic understanding but with clear gaps.

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, and the schema description coverage is 100% (since there are no parameters to describe). In such cases, the baseline score is 4, as there's no need for the description to compensate for parameter documentation. The description doesn't add parameter details, but that's appropriate given the lack of parameters.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Get Basecoat CSS setup code with CDN links.' It specifies the action ('Get'), the resource ('Basecoat CSS setup code'), and the format ('with CDN links'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like 'get_theme_script' or 'get_usage', which might also retrieve code-related resources, so it doesn't reach a perfect score.

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 doesn't mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, such as whether this is for initial setup only or if it's needed for specific environments. With sibling tools like 'get_theme_script' and 'get_usage', there's no indication of how this tool differs in usage scenarios.

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