Retrieves the source code for a specific shadcn/ui v4 component by name, so AI assistants can inspect and reuse UI building blocks in development workflows.
Get the source code for a specific shadcn/ui v4 component
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| componentName | Yes | Name of the shadcn/ui component (e.g., "accordion", "button") |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint: true, so the description doesn't need to cover safety. It adds the detail that it returns source code, which is consistent and slightly more specific than the tool name. No contradictions, though it could mention return format or error behavior.
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, front-loaded sentence that is direct and free of redundancy. Every word earns its place.
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 simple read-only getter with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately conveys the tool's purpose. Sibling differentiation is implicit through 'source code', and the annotations cover safety. No critical information is missing.
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 input schema provides 100% coverage with a clear description and example for componentName. The description adds no extra parameter semantics, but the schema handles it well, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('source code for a specific shadcn/ui v4 component'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_component_demo and get_component_metadata by emphasizing 'source code'.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies usage via 'source code' but doesn't name siblings or provide exclusion criteria. Given the cluster of similar tools (demo, metadata), this is a missed opportunity to clarify 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.