Retrieve cited accessibility guidance for a UI component, including relevant markup and keyboard sections, or get a not_published status when no guidance is available.
Return bounded, cited guidance published in an Accessibility section or relevant published markup/keyboard sections. Returns status not_published when none is available.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| component | Yes | ||
| source_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two useful traits: output is 'bounded' and 'cited', and a 'not_published' status is returned when nothing is found. However, it never states read-only nature, permission or scope requirements, how 'bounded' limits results, or pagination/truncation behavior for a lookup that could return large sections.
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?
Two tight sentences with the primary behavior front-loaded and the edge case second. No filler, though the phrase 'relevant published markup/keyboard sections' is compressed to the point of 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?
With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, the description should do more. It hints at return shape via 'cited' and 'not_published', but leaves parameter meaning, scope, and result size unexplained for a two-parameter lookup tool.
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 description coverage is 0% across two parameters, so the description must compensate. It adds no meaning for either: 'component' is never explained (name? ID? path?) and 'source_id' is not mentioned at all, leaving the agent to guess constraints like the 120/60 character limits or whether source_id narrows the lookup.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: returns published accessibility guidance, plus the fallback status 'not_published'. An agent can tell this is a documentation-lookup tool, though it never says what 'component' identifies or how it differs from siblings like get_component_examples.
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 mention of accessibility, markup and keyboard sections, and the 'not_published' fallback tells the agent what happens when nothing exists. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing to sibling tools such as find_components or get_component_examples.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.