Skip to main content
Glama
ruixenui

Ruixen MCP Server

Official
by ruixenui
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

@ruixen/mcp

npm version CI

Official Model Context Protocol server for Ruixen UI.

The server reads directly from the live Ruixen registry, so the components your AI assistant can reach are always in sync with what's on ruixen.com.

Installation

Add to your IDE's MCP config:

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "ruixen-mcp": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": ["-y", "@ruixen/mcp@latest"]
    }
  }
}

Works with any MCP-compatible client — Cursor, Claude Desktop, Windsurf, Cline, Roo-Cline, and VS Code (with an MCP extension). Each client stores this config in its own settings file; consult your client's docs for the exact location.

Related MCP server: aceternityui-mcp

Example Usage

Once configured, ask your AI assistant things like:

"Make a marquee of logos"

"Add a blur fade text animation"

"Add a grid background"

"Show me button components with spring animations"

The assistant calls the MCP tools below to discover components, pull their source, and hand you the exact npx shadcn@latest add … command to install each one into your project.

Available Tools

Tool

Description

listRegistryItems

List registry items with optional kind, query, limit, and offset filters. Good for broad browsing.

searchRegistryItems

Keyword search across names, titles, descriptions, and registry types, ranked by relevance. Good when you know roughly what you want.

getRegistryItem

Item detail for a specific component. Optionally includes source, examples, and relatedItems.

Development

npm install
npm run build   # tsc + chmod
npm test        # runs the live-registry smoke test (requires internet)

License

MIT

Available Tools

3 tools
getRegistryItemB

Gets detailed information for a single Ruixen UI registry item.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesExact registry item name, for example marquee.
includeSourceNoInclude the item's source code content.
includeExamplesNoInclude related example code when the item is a component.
includeRelatedNoInclude related registry items such as examples or dependencies.

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It only states the tool gets information but does not specify the return format, error handling (e.g., if item not found), read-only nature, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with no output schema.

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 sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any extraneous information. It is concise and front-loaded.

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 has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It does not explain what 'detailed information' includes, how the boolean parameters affect the response, or any behavior like error cases. More context is needed for an agent to use it effectively.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all 4 parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond that provided by the schema; it merely restates the purpose. Baseline score is appropriate.

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 tool retrieves detailed information for a single registry item. The verb 'gets' and resource 'detailed information for a single Ruixen UI registry item' are specific. This distinguishes it from sibling tools listRegistryItems (listing) and searchRegistryItems (searching).

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 use when you need details for a specific item by name, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus listing or searching. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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

listRegistryItemsC

Lists Ruixen UI registry items with optional filtering by kind, query, and limit.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
kindNoOptional kind filter such as component, example, style, or a raw registry type like registry:ui.
queryNoOptional text filter applied to names, titles, descriptions, and registry types.
limitNoMaximum number of items to return. Defaults to 25.
offsetNoPagination offset for exhaustive registry browsing. Defaults to 0.

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavioral traits. It fails to mention pagination (offset param), return format, or side effects. Basic list operation is implied but insufficient detail.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Single sentence, no wasted words. Front-loaded with purpose. Could include more detail but remains concise.

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?

With 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It lacks pagination behavior, default values, return structure, and ordering, making it insufficient for an agent to use correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. However, the description omits the offset parameter, mentioning only kind, query, and limit. It adds no semantic value beyond the schema and even misses a parameter.

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 lists registry items and mentions filtering by kind, query, and limit. It distinguishes from siblings implicitly (list vs. get/search), but does not explicitly differentiate.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like searchRegistryItems. The description only states optional filtering, lacking context on when to choose this tool.

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

searchRegistryItemsB

Searches Ruixen UI registry items by keyword or use case.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryYesSearch query matched against names, titles, descriptions, and registry types.
kindNoOptional kind filter such as component, example, or style.
limitNoMaximum number of results to return. Defaults to 25.
offsetNoPagination offset for stepping through ranked search results. Defaults to 0.

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided; description does not disclose behavioral traits like search algorithm (case-sensitivity, fuzziness), result ranking, or pagination behavior beyond what parameters indicate.

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?

Single sentence that is to the point with no fluff; concisely conveys the tool's purpose.

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?

Lacks details on output format, search behavior, and differentiation from siblings; with no output schema or annotations, the description is insufficient for a search tool.

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 detailed parameter descriptions; description adds no extra meaning beyond what schema already provides.

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?

Description clearly states it searches Ruixen UI registry items by keyword or use case, which distinguishes it from sibling tools getRegistryItem and listRegistryItems.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, missing context such as 'use this for keyword search, listRegistryItems for browsing all items, getRegistryItem for a specific item'.

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

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. 3 tool updatesv1.0.1
    • First observedgetRegistryItem
    • First observedlistRegistryItems
    • First observedsearchRegistryItems
Deploy Server
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Scored across 3 tools

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct operation: retrieving a single item, listing with filters, and searching. There is no overlap in purpose.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names follow a verb_Noun pattern in camelCase, though getRegistryItem uses singular RegistryItem while the others use plural RegistryItems, a minor inconsistency.

Tool Count4/5

Three tools cover the core retrieval and search operations for a registry. The count is reasonable, though slightly low if full CRUD were expected.

Completeness3/5

The set covers reading, listing, and searching items but lacks create, update, or delete operations. This may be intentional for a read-only registry, but it's a notable gap.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessNo issues

Resources

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

  • idux-ui-mcp

    hangboss1761
    A
    license
    B
    quality
    C
    maintenance
    Provides smart access to iDux UI component library, enabling AI assistants to retrieve component information, documentation, and usage examples via MCP tools.
    5
    3 npm
    MIT

  • ui-registry-mcp

    mrityunjay-tiwari
    A
    license
    A
    quality
    B
    maintenance
    Provides coding agents live access to shadcn-style component registries, enabling them to search, compare, and fetch real component source code for UI composition.
    5
    61 npm
    5
    MIT