Extracts component names, variants, and import paths from your local shadcn/ui, radix, antd, or mui library. Use it to map Figma designs to your actual component contracts.
Auto-scan the project's local component library (shadcn/ui / radix / antd / mui) and extract component names, CVA variant definitions, and import paths.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| projectRoot | Yes | Absolute path to the project root |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the extraction targets (names, CVA variants, import paths) and is implicitly read-only, but says nothing about side effects, caching (notable given the sibling cache_clear), performance on large projects, or failure 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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb, scope, and extraction outputs are all delivered economically.
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?
With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the data returned (component names, variant definitions, import paths). For a one-parameter read-style tool with no annotations this is nearly complete, missing only side-effect and prerequisite context.
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?
Only one parameter (projectRoot) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds no format or constraint details beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb ('scan') and resource ('the project's local component library'), and enumerates what it extracts (component names, CVA variant definitions, import paths). It is easy to distinguish from a save/compile tool, though it never names the relevant siblings (e.g. save_component) to sharpen the boundary.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no stated prerequisites, such as whether this must run before save_component or compile_figma_component. Usage is only implied by the phrase 'auto-scan the project's local component library'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.