Retrieve all Basecoat CSS components organized by category to help developers build accessible HTML interfaces with forms, navigation, feedback, and layout elements.
List all available Basecoat components organized by category
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions organization by category but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or whether it's read-only. The description is minimal and misses key operational details for a tool with no annotation support.
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 front-loads the core purpose ('List all available Basecoat components') and adds useful detail ('organized by category') without any waste. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool.
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 output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but minimal. It covers the basic purpose and output organization but lacks details on behavior, usage context, or return values, leaving gaps for an agent to operate effectively without additional context.
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 with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add param info, which is appropriate, but it does imply the output structure (organized by category), adding slight value beyond the empty schema.
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 action ('List all available') and resource ('Basecoat components'), specifying organization by category. It distinguishes from siblings like 'search_components' (which implies filtering) and 'get_component' (singular retrieval), though not explicitly named.
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?
Usage is implied by the description's focus on listing all components by category, suggesting it's for broad overviews rather than specific queries. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'search_components' or 'get_category', and no prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.