Fetch a curated SwiftUI component by ID, retrieving full source code, usage example, and notes to paste directly into your project.
Fetch one curated SwiftUI component by id, including full production-ready, current-API source code, usage example, and notes. Paste the returned Swift directly into the project.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Component id (see list_components / search_components). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must convey behavior. 'Fetch' indicates a read operation, but it does not explicitly state that no data is modified or that there are no side effects. The instruction to paste code is user guidance, not tool behavior, so transparency is adequate but not explicit.
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?
The description is concise, with two sentences that fully convey purpose and output without redundancy. It is well-structured and free of fluff.
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?
Even without an output schema, the description explicitly lists what is returned (full source code, usage example, notes), providing complete context for the tool's function. No additional information is needed.
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?
The single parameter 'id' has a description that explains its meaning and directs users to list_components / search_components for valid values. Schema coverage is 100%, and the description adds useful context, elevating it above the baseline.
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 clearly states the tool fetches one curated SwiftUI component by id, including source code, usage example, and notes. It distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly focusing on retrieval by id rather than listing or searching.
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?
The description implies usage when a specific component id is known, and the parameter description references list_components / search_components to obtain ids. It also instructs to paste the returned Swift into the project, providing practical guidance. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools in the main description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.