Retrieve a public design system adoption manifest: tokens, components, pages, brand asset URLs, and design-direction block. Use it to apply the complete specification.
Full adoption manifest for a public system: tokens, components, pages, brand asset URLs and the binding design-direction block.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | System name, public slug or alias (e.g. "launchwp") |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It describes the manifest's contents but does not state that the operation is read-only, whether authentication or special permissions are needed, or any failure conditions. The verb 'get' hints at retrieval, but the description itself adds no safety or side-effect information.
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 a single sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core concept 'Full adoption manifest' and then lists the included categories compactly, making it easy to scan and parse.
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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description gives a solid inventory of the returned content and a usage constraint ('public system'). It does not specify the response format or error behavior, but the listed contents are sufficient for basic orientation and decision making.
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 covers the single parameter 'name' completely with a clear description. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 identifies the tool as returning a 'Full adoption manifest' and enumerates its specific contents (tokens, components, pages, brand asset URLs, design-direction block). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like get_system_tokens, which focus on a subset.
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?
The phrase 'Full adoption manifest' and the constraint 'for a public system' imply when this tool is appropriate, but no alternatives are named and no conditions for choosing it over siblings like get_system_tokens are stated. Usage is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.