Appo MCP

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

generate_component

Generate a complete React component integrating an Appo SDK feature. Choose a feature, styling, and variant to receive ready-to-use UI code.

Instructions

Generate a UI component that uses @appolabs/appo SDK features. Returns a complete React component with SDK integration.

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": {
      "feature": "<feature>"
    },
    "name": "generate_component"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`feature`	Yes	The SDK feature to build the component around
`styling`	No	Styling approach (default: tailwind)
`variant`	No	Component variant/type
`componentName`	No	Component name (optional, defaults to {Feature}Button or similar)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.1Jan 13, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states it generates and returns a React component, but lacks details on side effects (e.g., file creation), authorization needs, or any limitations. For a code generation tool, more transparency is needed.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. No wasted words, efficient and clear.

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 the tool's complex task of generating SDK-integrated components and no output schema, the description should provide more context about the output format, defaults, or constraints. It is too brief to fully guide an agent.

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%, with each parameter well-described in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 the verb 'generate' and resource 'UI component', specifies it uses @appolabs/appo SDK features, and returns a complete React component with SDK integration. This differentiates it from siblings like generate_hook or scaffold_feature.

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. It does not mention when not to use it, prerequisites, or contrast with sibling tools like check_permissions or diagnose_issue.

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