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 searches by name or category, but doesn't describe key behaviors such as whether it returns partial matches, supports pagination, has rate limits, requires authentication, or what the output format looks like (e.g., list of objects). For a search 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 extremely concise and front-loaded with a single, clear sentence: 'Search for components by name or category.' There is no wasted text, repetition, or unnecessary elaboration, making it efficient and easy to parse for an AI agent.

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 complexity (a search function with one parameter), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return values, behavioral traits like search specificity or result limits, or how it differs from sibling tools. For a tool that likely returns multiple results, more context is needed to guide effective usage.

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 description adds minimal value beyond the input schema, which has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'query'. It mentions searching 'by name or category,' which loosely relates to the query parameter but doesn't provide additional syntax, examples beyond the schema's description, or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the schema already documents the parameter adequately.

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 as 'Search for components by name or category,' which includes a specific verb ('search') and resource ('components'). It distinguishes the search functionality from siblings like 'list_components' (which likely lists without filtering) and 'get_component' (which retrieves a single component). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_category' or other siblings, keeping it from 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 when to choose 'search_components' over 'list_components' (e.g., for filtered results vs. full listing) or 'get_component' (e.g., for specific IDs vs. queries). There's no context on prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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