Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
web-ui-component-spec-mcp

web-ui-component-spec-mcp

by gcsebas99
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

get_component_tests

Retrieve test scenarios for specified components. Use for writing tests or reviewing implementations against the spec. More efficient than full spec retrieval when only tests are needed.

Instructions

Return only the Test Scenarios for one or more components. Use this when writing tests or reviewing an implementation against the spec. More token-efficient than get_component_spec when tests are all you need.

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": {
      "components": "<components>"
    },
    "name": "get_component_tests"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
componentsYesList of component names or ids. e.g. ['Modal', 'Button'] or ['46', '16']

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.2

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It indicates the tool returns test scenarios (read-only behavior) but does not disclose any other traits like output format, pagination, or rate limits. Minimal additional context beyond the obvious.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words, front-loading the core function and usage. Every sentence adds value.

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 the tool's simplicity (one param, no output schema), the description fully covers its purpose, usage context, and differentiation from siblings. No missing essential information.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description covers 100% of the single parameter, which is well described. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states the tool returns 'only the Test Scenarios for one or more components', providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings by noting token-efficiency over get_component_spec when tests are the focus.

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?

Clearly advises using this tool 'when writing tests or reviewing an implementation against the spec' and contrasts with get_component_spec for efficiency, providing both context and an alternative.

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