UML Forge

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

umlforge_frontend_components

Read-only

Design frontend component trees and interaction flows for UI features. Visualize hierarchy, props, state, and catch god components or prop drilling issues.

Instructions

Design a frontend component tree and interaction flow for a UI feature.

USE THIS WHEN:

You are designing or documenting a React, Vue, Angular, or Svelte feature
You want to see component hierarchy, props flow, and state management
You need to identify god components or prop drilling issues

NOT FOR:

Backend service interactions → use umlforge_api_sequence
Full codebase including frontend → use umlforge_reverse_engineer
Overall system architecture for stakeholders → use umlforge_stakeholder_arch

Produces:

Component hierarchy graph: parent-child, props (downward arrows), events/callbacks (upward dashed arrows), state store connections, API origins
Interaction sequence diagram: most complex user flow — loading, success, error
Component responsibility table: responsibilities, state owned, reusability flag
Accessibility note: ARIA roles needed, keyboard nav, WCAG risks
God component flags (⚠️) for components with too many responsibilities
(report_mode=True) Component Analysis Notes: coupling risks, refactoring quick wins

Args: feature_description: The UI feature or page to diagram. framework: Frontend framework (default: React). Supported: React, Vue, Angular, Svelte, Next.js. state_management: State approach — Redux, Zustand, Context API, Pinia (optional). interactions: Key user interactions and data flows (e.g. "user submits form, table sorts on header click") (optional). report_mode: True → also produce Component Analysis Notes. Pro/Team/Enterprise only. Omit to use your saved account preference (dashboard toggle); False forces diagrams only.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`framework`	No	React
`report_mode`	No
`interactions`	No
`state_management`	No
`feature_description`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedv0.3.0Oct 16, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / report_mode / anyOf
```
Added value: +[
+  {
+    "type": "boolean"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]
```
- changedInput schema / properties / report_mode / default
```
Previous value: -falseNew value: +null
```
- removedInput schema / properties / report_mode / type
```
Removed value: -"boolean"
```
First observedv0.1.9Jul 21, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: the tier gating on report_mode (Pro/Team/Enterprise only), the fallback to a saved dashboard preference when omitted, and the concrete artifacts produced (god component flags, accessibility notes). It does not mention auth beyond tiers or rate limits, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then uses clear headers (USE THIS WHEN / NOT FOR / Produces / Args) so the content is scannable. It runs long, and since an output schema exists, the six-item Produces list is partly redundant, but each block still carries distinguishing information rather than filler.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given a 5-parameter generation tool with an output schema present, the description covers purpose, routing to alternatives, tier constraints, parameter semantics, and expected artifacts. Nothing an agent needs to select or invoke it correctly is missing.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the Args section documents all five parameters with meaning and examples: supported frameworks are listed, interactions comes with an example ('user submits form, table sorts on header click'), state_management names concrete libraries, and report_mode explains the True/omit/False trichotomy plus the tier requirement. This fully compensates for the empty schema coverage.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Design a frontend component tree and interaction flow for a UI feature') and immediately distinguishes itself from three siblings via the NOT FOR section. An agent can tell it apart from umlforge_api_sequence, umlforge_reverse_engineer, and umlforge_stakeholder_arch without opening any schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicit USE THIS WHEN conditions (React/Vue/Angular/Svelte feature, wanting hierarchy/props/state visibility, god-component detection) and explicit NOT FOR exclusions that route to named alternatives. This is the full when/when-not/alternative triad.

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

Deploy Server