coss-ui-mcp

by Zoot01

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

JavaScript

Local

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: listing all components, searching for specific ones, getting detailed docs for a component, getting overview docs, planning a UI with recommendations, and fetching theme info. No overlap in functionality, and descriptions guide appropriate use.
Naming Consistency4/5
Tools follow a 'coss_<verb>_<noun>' pattern for most (get_component, get_doc, list_components), but three tools use a single verb without a noun (plan, search, theme). While readable and prefixed consistently, the lack of uniform verb-noun structure slightly reduces predictability.
Tool Count5/5
With 6 tools covering exploration, search, detailed documentation, planning, and theming, the count is well-scoped for a UI component library reference server. Each tool provides essential functionality without unnecessary redundancy.
Completeness5/5
The tool set covers the full lifecycle of using the component library: discovering (list, search), understanding (get_component, get_doc), planning (plan), and styling (theme). No obvious gaps for a read-only reference MCP server.
Average 4.2/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 1 commit in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It indicates a read-only search operation and returns ranked matches with install commands, but lacks explicit statements about side effects, authentication requirements, or result structure, which would be valuable for an agent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, with three short sentences that immediately convey the tool's purpose and usage. No redundant information, and key points are front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While the description covers basic purpose and usage, it lacks details on result ranking, how install commands are presented, and the exact output format. Given no output schema, more context on what the agent can expect from results would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Parameter descriptions in the schema cover 100% of the details (query, limit, section). The description adds minimal semantic value beyond schema, only clarifying the context of 'ranked matches with install commands.' Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool searches for coss UI components/hooks by various criteria and returns ranked matches with install commands. It distinguishes itself from siblings like coss_get_component (which likely retrieves a single component) by indicating its role as the initial search step.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description advises 'Use first to find the right component,' providing clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or specify alternatives for known components, leaving some gap in guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It describes what is returned but does not disclose any side effects, network calls, caching, or permissions. Adequate for a read operation but lacks depth.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise: two sentences with zero wasted words. First sentence defines purpose and content; second provides usage timing.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does and when to use it. Could potentially mention return format, but not necessary given the simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds example values matching the schema, but does not provide additional semantic meaning beyond the schema description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it retrieves full documentation for one component/hook, listing contents (install, usage, API/props, examples). It distinguishes from sibling tools like coss_list_components (which lists) and coss_plan (which plans).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly advises 'Fetch on demand after search/plan,' providing context on when to use. Does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but sibling names are provided for distinction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. Description indicates a read operation but doesn't disclose potential side effects, permissions, or return details. Adequate for a simple getter.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single concise sentence (10 words) that front-loads the purpose. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Simple tool with one parameter. Description covers what the tool does and what inputs are valid. Lacks return value info, but acceptable given low complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema covers 100% with enum and description. Description repeats the valid values, adding 'overview/guide doc' context, but doesn't extend beyond schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the tool gets an overview/guide doc and lists the specific slugs (introduction, get-started, styling, roadmap). Distinguishes from sibling tools that handle components, planning, etc.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implied usage: to retrieve a specific doc. The enum values provide clear context, but no explicit exclusions or comparisons to siblings are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It mentions 'cheap overview' indicating low cost, but does not disclose potential outcomes, pagination, or permissions. Adequate but not comprehensive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences. The first states purpose, the second provides usage guidance. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with key information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It covers purpose, parameter, and usage hint. It could mention return format explicitly, but 'one-line descriptions' implies it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% (parameter has enum and default described). The description adds context about listing sections (components, hooks, overview) and one-line descriptions, but does not significantly extend beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists the coss UI catalog (components, hooks, or overview docs) with one-line descriptions. It distinguishes from sibling tools like coss_get_component (detailed fetch) by noting it's a cheap overview.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description advises 'call before fetching full docs,' providing clear usage context. It implies when to use but does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It accurately describes what the tool returns (design tokens, font conventions, @theme block, etc.). Does not mention side effects, but as a 'get' tool it is likely read-only. Provides sufficient detail for an agent to understand its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with main purpose, then usage tips. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema, but description details the content returned (design tokens, font conventions, setup commands, @theme block). Covers both format options. For a simple single-parameter tool, this is sufficiently complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with enum description. Description adds value by explaining the effect of the 'full' format ('complete styling guide'), which goes beyond the schema's generic description. Helps agent choose parameter value correctly.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it retrieves design tokens, font conventions, setup commands, and specifically shadcn-style CSS variables. Distinguishes from sibling tools like coss_get_component and coss_get_doc by focusing on theme/styling.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states when to use ('setting up a project or rebranding the look') and provides guidance on the format parameter ('Pass format:'full' for the complete styling guide'). No explicit alternatives but siblings are distinct, so context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns ranked recommendations with install commands and base project setup. However, it does not detail any behavioral traits like idempotency, data sources, or whether it modifies state. Still, the core behavior is clearly described, earning a 4.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, no wasted words. Front-loaded with the main action and result. Every sentence adds essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given only 2 params, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It explains what the tool returns, the order, and how to sequence with sibling tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%. The description adds meaning by framing 'task' as a natural-language description and noting that results are ranked and include install commands. For 'limit', it does not repeat the default but the context is clear. Overall, description adds value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: given a natural-language description, it returns recommended UI components (ranked with install commands) plus base project setup. It distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly saying 'call this first, then coss_get_component'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit usage guidance: 'The token-efficient starting point — call this first, then coss_get_component for the ones you'll build with.' This tells when to use this tool and when to use the alternative sibling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![coss-ui-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Zoot01/coss-ui-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Zoot01/coss-ui-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![coss-ui-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Zoot01/coss-ui-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Zoot01/coss-ui-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Zoot01/coss-ui-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server