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 mentions retrieving documentation but does not specify format (e.g., markdown, HTML), permissions required, rate limits, or error handling. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this lacks essential context about how the tool behaves.

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 usage documentation for a component.' It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, with zero wasted words. This is appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter.

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 (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'usage documentation' includes, how results are returned, or differentiate from siblings. For a tool in a set with multiple similar options, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 100% description coverage, with the 'component' parameter documented as 'Component name (e.g., "button", "card", "input").' The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as valid component types or examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the tool's purpose as 'Get usage documentation for a component,' which is clear but vague. It specifies the verb 'Get' and resource 'usage documentation,' but lacks detail on what 'usage documentation' entails or how it differs from similar tools like 'get_component' or 'get_category.' This provides basic understanding but no sibling differentiation.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'get_component' and 'get_category' available, it fails to specify contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions. This leaves the agent without direction on selecting the appropriate tool for documentation needs.

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