Retrieve details for a specific iDux UI component, including name, description, and API docs (defaults to Vue 3), to understand its usage.
获取特定idux组件的详细信息，包括组件名称、描述、API文档（默认使用Vue3版本）
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| vueVersion | No | Vue版本（默认使用vue3） | vue3 |
| componentName | Yes | 组件名称 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. The verb '获取' (get) implies a non-mutating read and the default Vue3 note is helpful, but there is no statement about read-only guarantees, caching, permissions, or whether results are exhaustive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence that states purpose, scope, and the return payload with no wasted words. It is efficient, though minimal.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
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 with fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers what is fetched and the version default. Only minor gaps remain, such as how the API documentation is returned.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description's mention of the Vue3 default merely restates the schema's default/enum, adding no new semantics beyond the structured data.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names a specific verb+resource (get detailed info for a specific idux component) and enumerates what is returned (name, description, API docs). It is clearly distinguishable from list/search siblings, though it does not name them explicitly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is only implied: fetch details when you already have a component name. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of the sibling tools (list_idux_components, search_components, get_component_examples) that cover adjacent needs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.