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

web-ui-component-spec-mcp

by gcsebas99
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

get_step_by_step

Retrieve specific steps from the UI component build guide to match your current design, development, or testing phase.

Instructions

Return one or more steps from the Step-by-Step Build Guide. Fetch only the steps relevant to the current phase of work. e.g. pass [1, 2, 3] when defining design tokens, [7, 8] when building components.

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": {
      "steps": "<steps>"
    },
    "name": "get_step_by_step"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
stepsYesStep number(s) to retrieve, or 'all'. Steps: 1=Color, 2=Typography, 3=Spacing, 4=Look&Feel, 5=DevEnv, 6=Tokens, 7=Foundational Components, 8=Compound Components, 9=Testing, 10=Documentation, 11=Iterate

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.2

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or safe. The behavior is implied but not transparently disclosed.

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?

The description is extremely concise, containing two sentences with an example, no wasted words.

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?

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It could mention the return format or error handling, but the given context is adequate.

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?

The schema covers the parameter semantics thoroughly (100% coverage), and the description adds value by providing usage examples tied to phases of work.

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 the tool returns steps from a build guide, using a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools which focus on 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?

The description provides examples of when to pass specific step numbers (e.g., design tokens, building components), giving context on usage. However, it lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance.

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