UML Forge

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

umlforge_frontend_components

Read-only

Design a frontend component tree and interaction flow for a UI feature. Map component hierarchy, props flow, and state management; flag god components and 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.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

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

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.9Jul 21, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true). The description adds real context beyond that: the full list of artifacts produced, the god-component flagging behavior, and a tier requirement for report_mode ('Pro/Team/Enterprise only'). It doesn't disclose rate limits or generation latency, so not 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-loaded one-line purpose followed by scannable USE THIS WHEN / NOT FOR / Produces / Args sections. Sized appropriately for a generator tool, though the Args block partly restates schema property names.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be spelled out, yet the description still enumerates the deliverables, which helps selection. All five parameters are addressed and the tier gate on report_mode is flagged. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly is missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it documents the supported framework values (React, Vue, Angular, Svelte, Next.js), state-management options, an example for interactions, and the meaning of report_mode. Only feature_description lacks added guidance, but it is self-evident.

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+resource ('Design a frontend component tree and interaction flow for a UI feature') and immediately distinguishes itself from sibling tools by name in the NOT FOR section. An agent can route to this tool without opening the schemas of the alternatives.

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 and NOT FOR exclusions, each routing to a named sibling (umlforge_api_sequence, umlforge_reverse_engineer, umlforge_stakeholder_arch). This is textbook when/when-not/alternative guidance.

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

Deploy Server