Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
aceternity-mcp

aceternity-mcp

by dvnold
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

list_components

Retrieve a compact summary of all Aceternity UI components, optionally filtered by category slug, including slug, name, category, tags, and summary.

Instructions

List all available Aceternity UI components.

Optionally filter by category slug. Returns a compact summary for each component (slug, name, category, tags, summary).

Args: category: Optional category slug (e.g. "hero-sections") include_pro: Include pro-only components (default: True)

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_components"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
categoryNo
include_proNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.4.1

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided. The description discloses the return format but does not mention pagination, rate limits, or side effects. It correctly implies a read-only operation but lacks detailed behavioral context.

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?

The description is concise with five lines, front-loading the main purpose and then detailing filtering and return format. Each sentence adds value, though the Args section could be integrated more smoothly.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given no annotations and a low-complexity tool, the description covers purpose, filtering, and return format. It lacks error handling or behavior when no results, but output schema exists. Adequate for the task.

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 carries the burden. It explains the 'category' parameter with an example slug and notes that 'include_pro' filters pro components. This adds meaning beyond the schema's type and default.

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?

The description clearly states 'List all available Aceternity UI components' with optional filtering by category slug. It specifies the return format (compact summary with slug, name, category, tags, summary). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_components and filter_by_scores.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage for listing components with optional category filter. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings (e.g., search_components for text search, filter_by_scores for scoring). No exclusions or alternatives are provided.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools