Astryx Documentation MCP Server

get_astryx_component

Retrieve usage, props, imports, and code specifications for any Astryx component to implement it correctly.

Instructions

Retrieve usage, props, imports, and code specifications for a specific Astryx component.

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": {
      "componentName": "<componentName>"
    },
    "name": "get_astryx_component"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`componentName`	Yes	The name of the component (e.g., 'Button', 'AppShell', 'Table', 'Avatar', 'Dialog', 'Input')

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 23, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. The description says it retrieves usage, props, imports, and code specs, disclosing the kind of data returned. However, it doesn't mention any side effects, permission requirements, or edge cases (e.g., what happens if component doesn't exist). For a read operation this is acceptable but not comprehensive.

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?

Single sentence, concise, lists key deliverables (usage, props, imports, code specs). It is front-loaded with the action. No waste, though a bit terse.

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?

For a simple read tool with one parameter and a clear description, it is mostly complete. The description doesn't mention what exact code specifications look like or error handling, but given the simplicity and no output schema, it's adequate. Slight gaps: how detailed the retrieval is, whether it returns snippets or full source.

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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter componentName, including an example list. The description adds nothing beyond the schema but doesn't need to, given the coverage. The baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves usage, props, imports, and code specifications for a specific Astryx component. It names the resource (Astryx component) and the verb (retrieve). It distinguishes from siblings that handle docs search, theme guides, and CLI commands, but does not explicitly name any sibling.

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: when you need details about a specific component. It does not explicitly state when not to use it versus siblings. For example, it doesn't say 'use search_astryx_docs for broader searches.' The purpose is clear but exclusions are not named.

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

Deploy Server