Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Offline Designer MCP

Offline Designer MCP

by gil906
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

designer_get_bundle

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve an offline design reference dossier by ID to inspect its formats, origins, licensing, and coverage before using its assets.

Instructions

Read a catalog-listed offline dossier index with actual formats, origins, licensing and honest coverage.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "designer_get_bundle"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.4.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The annotations already declare this as a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation in a closed world. The description adds some useful context about the content being an offline catalog-listed dossier with formats, origins, licensing, and coverage, but does not explain behavior for missing IDs, errors, or what 'honest coverage' means operationally.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence, which is efficient, but it includes vague marketing-like phrases such as 'honest coverage' that do not help an agent decide or invoke correctly.

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?

The tool is simple and an output schema exists, reducing the need to explain return values. However, the description omits any explanation of what the 'id' identifies and how it relates to a bundle, leaving a meaningful gap for correct invocation.

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?

The schema has one required parameter ('id') with 0% description coverage and only length constraints. The description does not mention the parameter at all, so it fails to compensate for the schema's lack of semantic detail.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description uses a specific verb ('Read') and names a resource ('catalog-listed offline dossier index'), but the wording is jargon-heavy and does not clearly distinguish this tool from siblings like designer_get_reference or designer_get_asset. It also does not make explicit that this is a retrieval-by-ID operation for a 'bundle'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling retrieval tools, nor any stated preconditions or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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