Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
coss-ui-mcp

coss-ui-mcp

by Zoot01
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

coss_get_component

Retrieve complete documentation for any coss UI component or hook, including installation, usage, API reference, and examples.

Instructions

Get the full docs for ONE coss ui component or hook: install (shadcn CLI + manual npm deps + CSS tokens), usage, full API/props reference, and examples. Fetch on demand after search/plan.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "slug": "<slug>"
    },
    "name": "coss_get_component"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
slugYesComponent/hook slug, e.g. "button", "dialog", "use-media-query".

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
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.

Deploy Server

Other Tools