Skip to main content
Glama
Offline Designer MCP
by gil906

designer_get_asset

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a known local design image or animation/reference JSON with provenance; it does not render SVG or HTML.

Instructions

Read a known local design image or animation/reference JSON with provenance; no SVG/HTML rendering.

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": {
      "reference_id": "<reference_id>",
      "asset_id": "<asset_id>"
    },
    "name": "designer_get_asset"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
asset_idYes
reference_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.4.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the asset is local, read with provenance, and is not rendered as SVG/HTML, but it does not describe return format, error behavior, or what provenance entails.

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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. Its terseness borders on cryptic, but every phrase contributes to scope or exclusion.

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 two-parameter read tool, the description establishes scope and exclusions, and annotations cover safety. However, with no output schema and no parameter documentation, an agent still lacks clarity on what is returned and what the two identifiers mean.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden for both required parameters. It implies that reference_id and asset_id are known identifiers, but it does not explain the distinction between them, expected formats, or how reference_id relates to provenance.

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 states a specific verb (Read) and resources (local design image or animation/reference JSON) plus a provenance scope. It distinguishes the tool from search-like siblings through the word 'known', but it does not name or explicitly contrast with siblings such as designer_get_reference or designer_get_bundle.

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 word 'known' implies the caller must already have identifiers rather than searching, and 'no SVG/HTML rendering' excludes a class of use cases. However, no explicit alternative or when-not guidance is given, so an agent must infer when to use this versus designer_get_reference or designer_search.

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