stitch-mcp-stdio

get_screen

Read-only

Retrieve detailed information for a specific screen in a project by providing its resource name.

Instructions

Retrieves the details of a specific screen within a project.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes	Required. Identifier. The resource name of the screen to retrieve. Format: `projects/{project}/screens/{screen}` Example: `projects/4044680601076201931/screens/98b50e2ddc9943efb387052637738f61`

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	No	Identifier. The name of the screen. Format: projects/{project}/screens/{screen}
`title`	No	The title of the screen.
`width`	No	The width of the screen.
`height`	No	The height of the screen.
`htmlCode`	No	The HTML code of the screen.
`deviceType`	No	The device type of the screen.
`screenshot`	No	The screenshot of the screen.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Sep 20, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the tool is known safe and non-mutating. The description adds no extra behavioral context beyond that; it doesn't discuss errors, access requirements, or output format. Meets baseline with annotation coverage.

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?

One concise sentence that fully captures the purpose. No wasted words, front-loaded with key action and resource.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the simple single-parameter tool, output schema present, and read-only annotation, the description is sufficient. No critical information is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 covers 100% of parameters with detailed description, including format and example. The description adds no extra semantic meaning beyond that. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clear verb and resource: retrieves details of a specific screen. Distinguishes from list_screens implicitly, but doesn't name the sibling explicitly. Adequate for selection.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this over siblings like list_screens or edit_screens. However, the schema's required 'name' format implies a single-screen fetch, and the presence of output schema suggests it's for detailed inspection. Usage is implied but not explicit.

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

Deploy Server