Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
design-critique-mcp

design-critique-mcp

by haasonsaas
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

analyze_layout

Analyze design images to assess visual composition and layout structure for web, mobile, print, or general designs.

Instructions

Analyze visual composition and layout structure

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": {
      "image_data": "<image_data>"
    },
    "name": "analyze_layout"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
image_dataYesBase64 encoded image data
design_typeNoType of design being analyzedweb

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits, but it only gives a high-level purpose. It does not mention that the tool is read-only, what input it requires (beyond schema), or what output it returns. This is a significant gap for an analysis tool.

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 six-word phrase with no unnecessary words. It is efficient and front-loaded, though extremely brief.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite complete schema coverage, the description is incomplete for tool selection and invocation. There is no output schema, no behavioral details, and no explanation of what 'analysis' returns. The agent is left without sufficient context to know what to expect.

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?

The input schema already covers both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Analyze visual composition and layout structure' clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Analyze') and resource ('visual composition and layout structure'). It distinguishes from color, typography, and accessibility siblings, though it may overlap with critique_design.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it specify any exclusions or prerequisites. Sibling tools exist, but there is no reference to them.

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