Skip to main content
Glama
appian-design

Design System MCP Server

get-content-sources

Retrieve available documentation sources and their status for Appian's Aurora design system, enabling access to component, layout, and pattern information from GitHub repositories.

Instructions

Get information about available documentation sources and their status

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • The handler implementation for the "get-content-sources" tool, which uses the sourceManager to retrieve and format source status information.
    server.tool(
      "get-content-sources",
      "Get information about available documentation sources and their status",
      {},
      async () => {
        const sources = sourceManager.getSourceStatus();
        
        const sourceInfo = sources.map(source => 
          `**${source.name.toUpperCase()} SOURCE**\n` +
          `- Enabled: ${source.enabled}\n` +
          `- Priority: ${source.priority}\n` +
          `- Authentication Required: ${source.auth_required}\n` +
          `- Last Sync: ${source.last_sync || 'Never'}`
        ).join('\n\n');
        
        return {
          content: [
            {
              type: "text",
              text: `Documentation Sources Status:\n\n${sourceInfo}`,
            },
          ],
        };
      },
    );
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions getting 'status' information, which hints at operational metadata, but doesn't specify what that status includes (e.g., availability, freshness, errors) or any behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether this is a read-only operation. The description is too vague about what 'information' and 'status' actually entail.

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 a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose without any fluff. Every word earns its place: 'Get' (action), 'information' (what), 'about available documentation sources and their status' (scope). It's appropriately sized for a zero-parameter tool and front-loads the essential information.

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?

For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides adequate but minimal context. It states what the tool does but leaves important questions unanswered: what format the information returns, what specific 'status' means, and how this differs from sibling listing tools. Without annotations or output schema, the description should ideally provide more behavioral context about the return values.

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?

The tool has zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't waste space discussing nonexistent parameters. It focuses solely on the tool's purpose without unnecessary parameter commentary.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('information about available documentation sources and their status'). It distinguishes this as a retrieval operation focused on source metadata rather than content itself. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list-categories' or 'list-components' which might also provide listing functionality.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'list-categories', 'list-components', and 'get-component-details', there's no indication whether this tool should be used for initial discovery, status checking, or as a prerequisite for other operations. The description lacks any 'when' or 'when not' context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

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/appian-design/aurora-mcp'

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