OriginUI MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool gets a screenshot/visual preview but doesn't cover aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what the output looks like (e.g., image format, size). This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely involves media retrieval.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Get component screenshot/visual preview') and includes the purpose ('to help assess if it fits the project'). There is no wasted verbiage or redundancy.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like response format (e.g., image data, URL), error cases, or usage constraints. For a tool that retrieves visual content, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 the schema fully documents both parameters (componentId and theme). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining the 'both' option for theme or providing examples beyond the ID format. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation.

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's purpose: 'Get component screenshot/visual preview' with the goal 'to help assess if it fits the project'. It specifies the resource (component) and outcome (screenshot/visual preview), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_component_preview' which might serve a similar purpose.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions the purpose of assessment but doesn't specify contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions, nor does it reference sibling tools like 'get_component_details' or 'get_component_preview' for comparison.

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