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

web-ui-component-spec-mcp

by gcsebas99
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

get_components_by_scenario

Return curated component lists and recommended build order for project types like SaaS dashboard or ecommerce. Use to scope a new library by passing a scenario or 'list' for options.

Instructions

Return a curated component list and recommended build order for a project type. Use this when starting a library from scratch to get a sensible scope and sequence. Pass 'list' as scenario to see all available options.

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": {
      "scenario": "<scenario>"
    },
    "name": "get_components_by_scenario"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
scenarioYesProject type. e.g. 'saas_dashboard', 'ecommerce', 'forms_heavy', 'content_site', 'mobile_web', 'minimal'. Pass 'list' to see all options.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.2

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided. Description discloses it returns a curated list and build order, but no further behavioral details (e.g., no side effects, no performance notes). Adequate but minimal.

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: first states purpose, second provides usage guidance and a special case. No redundancy, front-loaded.

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

Completeness3/5

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

No output schema, so description should clarify return format. It mentions 'curated component list and recommended build order' but omits structure (e.g., component names, order details). Satisfactory for a simple tool but leaves gaps.

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 coverage is 100% for the single 'scenario' parameter. Description adds value by explaining the 'list' option and giving example values, going beyond the schema's generic description.

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?

Description clearly states 'Return a curated component list and recommended build order for a project type', with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on scenario-based aggregation.

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?

Explicitly says when to use ('starting a library from scratch to get a sensible scope and sequence') and how to list options ('Pass 'list' as scenario'). No explicit when-not-to-use or direct alternates, but context is clear.

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