Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
aceternity-mcp

aceternity-mcp

by dvnold
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

recommend_combination

Selects a full-page component combination for each section (navigation, hero, features, etc.) based on a project or page description.

Instructions

Recommend a full-page component combination.

Given a project or page description, returns recommended components for each page section: navigation, hero, features, background, cards, CTA, footer, and text effects.

Args: description: Description of the page or project (e.g. "AI SaaS landing page") include_pro: Include pro components (default True)

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "description": "<description>"
    },
    "name": "recommend_combination"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
descriptionYes
include_proNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.4.1

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It describes behavior as returning recommendations, implying no side effects. Missing explicit statement about read-only nature, but sufficient.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Concise at 6 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, includes structured args list using docstring format, no fluff.

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?

With output schema present, description covers inputs and high-level output. Mentions all page sections returned, sufficient for agent to invoke correctly.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description fully explains both parameters: 'description' with an example and 'include_pro' with default value, adding significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 it recommends a full-page component combination, listing specific sections (navigation, hero, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'recommend_components' which likely recommend individual components.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Provides clear use case: 'Given a project or page description'. Includes example input. However, it does not explicitly exclude cases or compare to alternatives.

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