Get the HTML skeleton and motion code for hero, work, story, process, testimonial, or footer sections. Specify an id to fetch the recipe for a single section.
Structural DNA + HTML skeleton + the ONE motion moment for award-grade sections: hero, work, story/scrollytelling, process, proof/testimonials, footer/contact.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | Section id. Omit for all. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add value by naming three output components (structural DNA, HTML skeleton, one motion moment), but 'structural DNA' and 'award-grade' are undefined jargon, and the return format, ordering, or any side effects are not addressed.
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 one compact sentence and front-loads the three core components before the section list. 'Award-grade' is mild fluff and 'Structural DNA' is overly compressed, but there is no redundant prose or schema repetition.
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?
The tool covers six section archetypes and has no output schema or annotations, so a richer description is warranted. It never explains what 'Structural DNA' contains, what the 'ONE motion moment' means, how to combine this with lemon_motion_recipe, or what the returned content looks like.
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 schema already documents the single enum parameter with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value by mapping enum values to design intents (story/scrollytelling, proof/testimonials, footer/contact), which helps an agent choose the right section id. It does not add detail on omitting the parameter, but the schema already states that.
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 names the resource ('sections') and the main output components ('Structural DNA + HTML skeleton + the ONE motion moment'), so an agent can infer what the tool produces. However, it uses no explicit verb and relies on the metaphor 'Structural DNA', which weakens precision. The section list also implicitly separates it from the sibling lemon_motion_recipe, but that differentiation is not explicit.
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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as lemon_motion_recipe, lemon_design_principles, or lemon_critique. The list of section types implies it is for building those sections, but it does not state a decision rule, exclusions, or complementary tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.