Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Offline Designer MCP

Offline Designer MCP

by gil906
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

designer_library_status

Read-onlyIdempotent

Reports offline design catalog counts, categories, and source statuses, including blocked sources, so you can verify available references and identify unavailable inputs.

Instructions

Report actual offline design catalog counts, categories and source statuses, including blocked sources.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "designer_library_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.4.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds modest value by noting the counts are 'actual' (derived, not declared) and that blocked sources are included in the report. With an output schema present, no further disclosure of return shape is required.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; every clause (counts, categories, source statuses, blocked sources) carries information about the result set.

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?

Given zero parameters, rich annotations, and an output schema that documents the return values, this description is nearly sufficient. It could go slightly further by clarifying whether counts are global or scoped per category/source, but nothing critical for calling the tool is missing.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate beyond the resource itself.

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?

States a specific verb (report) and a well-defined resource: offline design catalog counts, categories, and source statuses. This clearly separates it from the sibling retrieval tools (designer_search, designer_get_asset, etc.), though it does not name those siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied — an agent can infer this is the tool to call to learn what is cached offline and which sources are blocked. There is no explicit 'use this when...' statement or routing guidance versus designer_audit or designer_search.

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