Skip to main content
Glama

get_component_condensed

Retrieve focused accessibility testing instructions for web or native UI components to verify compliance with accessibility standards.

Instructions

Get condensed acceptance criteria for a component. These are shorter, more focused testing instructions.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
platformYesPlatform (web or native)
componentYesComponent name (e.g., "button", "checkbox")

Implementation Reference

  • Primary MCP tool handler for 'get_component_condensed'. Fetches condensed acceptance criteria content via ContentLoader, with error handling providing suggestions and available formats.
    async function handleGetComponentCondensed(args: any) {
      try {
        const content = await contentLoader.getComponentContent(args.platform, args.component, 'condensed');
        return {
          content: [
            {
              type: 'text',
              text: content,
            },
          ],
        };
      } catch (error: any) {
        const suggestions = contentLoader.getSimilarComponents(args.platform, args.component);
        const formats = contentLoader.getAvailableFormats(args.platform, args.component);
    
        return {
          content: [
            {
              type: 'text',
              text: JSON.stringify(
                {
                  error: error.message,
                  component: args.component,
                  suggestions,
                  availableFormats: formats,
                },
                null,
                2
              ),
            },
          ],
          isError: true,
        };
      }
    }
  • Tool schema definition including name, description, and input schema requiring 'platform' (web/native) and 'component'.
    {
      name: 'get_component_condensed',
      description: 'Get condensed acceptance criteria for a component. These are shorter, more focused testing instructions.',
      inputSchema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {
          platform: {
            type: 'string',
            enum: ['web', 'native'],
            description: 'Platform (web or native)',
          },
          component: {
            type: 'string',
            description: 'Component name (e.g., "button", "checkbox")',
          },
        },
        required: ['platform', 'component'],
      },
    },
  • src/index.ts:64-65 (registration)
    Tool registration/dispatch in the MCP CallToolRequestSchema switch statement.
    case 'get_component_condensed':
      return await handleGetComponentCondensed(args);
  • Handler implementation for 'get_component_condensed' in the Netlify HTTP serverless function deployment.
    case 'get_component_condensed': {
      const content = await contentLoader.getComponentContent(args.platform, args.component, 'condensed');
      return { content: [{ type: 'text', text: content }] };
    }
  • Tool dispatch/registration in Netlify handleToolCall switch (inline handler).
    case 'get_component_condensed': {
      const content = await contentLoader.getComponentContent(args.platform, args.component, 'condensed');
      return { content: [{ type: 'text', text: content }] };
    }
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the output characteristics ('shorter, more focused testing instructions'), it doesn't address important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation (implied but not stated), whether it requires authentication, potential rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if the component doesn't exist. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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?

The description is perfectly concise - two clear sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second adds valuable context about the output format. No wasted words, front-loaded with the essential information.

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?

Given the tool's relative simplicity (2 required parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool returns but doesn't address the broader context of when to use it among many siblings or important behavioral considerations. For a read operation in a crowded namespace, more guidance would be helpful, but the basics are covered.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain what 'condensed' means in relation to the platform/component parameters or provide examples of component names beyond the schema's example. With complete schema coverage, the baseline score 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get condensed acceptance criteria for a component' with the specific verb 'Get' and resource 'acceptance criteria', and adds useful context about the output being 'shorter, more focused testing instructions'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from its many siblings (like get_component_gherkin or search_*_criteria), which would be needed for a perfect score.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With 10 sibling tools including get_component_gherkin, search_native_criteria, and search_web_criteria, the agent has no indication of when this condensed format is preferred over other formats or search methods. The description only states what the tool does, not when to choose it.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/joe-watkins/magentaa11y-mcp-remote'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server