Skip to main content
Glama
appian-design

Design System MCP Server

search-design-system

Search for design system components, layouts, and patterns by keyword with source filtering to find relevant documentation.

Instructions

Search for components, layouts, or patterns by keyword with source filtering

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
keywordYesKeyword to search for in titles and descriptions
includeInternalNoInclude internal documentation in search (default: false)
sourceOnlyNoFilter results by specific source

Implementation Reference

  • Implementation of the "search-design-system" MCP tool handler. It searches through designSystemData for components matching the keyword, filters by source and internal visibility, and returns a formatted string of results.
    server.tool(
      "search-design-system",
      "Search for components, layouts, or patterns by keyword with source filtering",
      {
        keyword: z.string().describe("Keyword to search for in titles and descriptions"),
        includeInternal: z.boolean().optional().describe("Include internal documentation in search (default: false)"),
        sourceOnly: z.enum(["public", "internal", "all"]).optional().describe("Filter results by specific source"),
      },
      async ({ keyword, includeInternal = false, sourceOnly }) => {
        const normalizedKeyword = keyword.toLowerCase();
        const results = [];
        
        // Search through all categories and components
        for (const [categoryName, category] of Object.entries(designSystemData)) {
          for (const [componentName, component] of Object.entries(category)) {
            if (
              component.title.toLowerCase().includes(normalizedKeyword) || 
              component.body.toLowerCase().includes(normalizedKeyword)
            ) {
              // Get source information for this component
              const sourcedContent = await sourceManager.getContent(component.filePath);
              
              // Apply source filtering
              if (sourceOnly && sourceOnly !== 'all' && sourcedContent?.source !== sourceOnly) {
                continue;
              }
              
              // Check internal access
              if (sourcedContent?.source === 'internal' && !includeInternal) {
                continue;
              }
              
              results.push({
                category: categoryName,
                name: componentName,
                title: component.title,
                description: component.body,
                source: sourcedContent?.source || 'unknown',
                overrides: sourcedContent?.overrides
              });
            }
          }
        }
        
        if (results.length === 0) {
          return {
            content: [
              {
                type: "text",
                text: `No results found for keyword "${keyword}" with the specified filters.`,
              },
            ],
          };
        }
        
        const formattedResults = results.map(result => {
          let resultText = `**Category:** ${result.category}\n**Component:** ${result.name}\n**Title:** ${result.title}\n**Description:** ${result.description}\n**Source:** ${result.source.toUpperCase()}`;
          if (result.overrides) {
            resultText += ` (overrides ${result.overrides})`;
          }
          return resultText;
        });
        
        return {
          content: [
            {
              type: "text",
              text: `Found ${results.length} results for "${keyword}":\n\n${formattedResults.join("\n\n")}`,
            },
          ],
        };
      },
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions source filtering but doesn't describe key behaviors like whether this is a read-only operation, what the response format looks like (e.g., pagination, result structure), or any performance or rate-limiting considerations. The description is minimal and lacks essential context for a search tool.

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 front-loads the core functionality (searching for design system elements by keyword) and includes the key feature (source filtering). There is no wasted wording, and it's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a search tool with three parameters. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., a list of results, error handling), behavioral traits like read-only status, or usage nuances. For a tool with moderate complexity and no structured support, the description should provide more context to be fully helpful.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (keyword, includeInternal, sourceOnly) with clear descriptions. The description adds marginal value by mentioning 'source filtering,' which aligns with the 'sourceOnly' parameter, but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what the schema specifies. 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.

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 as searching for design system elements (components, layouts, patterns) by keyword with source filtering. It specifies the verb 'search' and the resource 'components, layouts, or patterns,' but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list-components' or 'get-component-details' beyond the search functionality.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage for keyword-based searching with source filtering, but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list-components' (which might list all components without search) or 'get-component-details' (which might retrieve details for a specific component). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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