Get all available shadcn/ui v4 blocks organized by category. Filter by calendar, dashboard, login, sidebar, or products to find UI components for your project.
Get all available shadcn/ui v4 blocks with categorization
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| category | No | Filter by category (calendar, dashboard, login, sidebar, products) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read. The description adds 'with categorization', hinting at output structure, but does not disclose response format, pagination, or other behavioral details. It does not contradict annotations.
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?
One short sentence that communicates the core purpose and scope without any filler. Every word contributes meaning, and the structure is immediately scannable.
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 listing tool with one optional parameter, no output schema, and clear annotations, the description is nearly sufficient. It could mention what the returned list looks like or that it returns categorized data, but overall it is adequate for the low complexity.
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 already provides 100% description coverage for the category parameter, including valid values. The description adds no further meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3.
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 clearly states the action ('Get') and the resource ('all available shadcn/ui v4 blocks'), and adds the scope 'with categorization'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_block (singular) and list_components (different resource type), though it does not explicitly name them.
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. It does not mention when to prefer list_blocks over list_components or get_block, nor any exclusions. The only implied usage is that it lists blocks, which is already obvious from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.