list_componentsLists documented Bestax React components by category with one-line purposes, helping you choose the right name before calling get_component.
Every documented component with a one-line purpose, grouped by category. Cheap — use it to find the right name before calling get_component.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| category | No | elements, components, form, columns, grid, layout, helpers |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world behavior, so the safety burden is lifted. The description adds value annotations do not cover: cost ('Cheap') and output structure ('one-line purpose, grouped by category'). It stops short of mentioning result size or pagination, keeping it from a 5.
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 short sentences, zero filler. The output shape is front-loaded and the routing instruction follows immediately, so the agent gets the essential facts in the first read.
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?
For a zero-required-parameter enumeration tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, return shape and routing well. Minor omissions, such as roughly how many components come back or whether the result is exhaustive across categories, keep it just under a 5.
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 single 'category' parameter is fully documented in the schema at 100% coverage, including the allowed values, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds nothing about how grouping or filtering by category behaves, which is the baseline 3 case.
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+resource ('list components'), the scope ('every documented component'), and the return shape ('one-line purpose, grouped by category'). It also names the sibling it feeds into (get_component), so an agent can distinguish it from a detail-fetching call without opening a schema.
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?
Prescribes the workflow explicitly: call this first to find the right name, then call get_component. It also gives a selection cost signal ('Cheap'), which is exactly the kind of routing guidance an agent needs when choosing among list_skills, search_bestax and the get_* detail tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.