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 search functionality but doesn't describe what the tool returns (e.g., list of components with basic info), pagination behavior (implied by 'limit' parameter but not explained), or any constraints like rate limits or authentication needs. The description is too sparse for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 with zero waste—every word contributes to explaining the tool's purpose. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 explain what the search returns (e.g., component IDs, names, metadata), how results are ordered, or error handling. For a search tool with no structured output documentation, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 all three parameters (query, category, limit). The description adds marginal value by mentioning the searchable fields ('name, category, or tags'), which aligns with the schema but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Search') and target resource ('OriginUI components') with specific search criteria ('by name, category, or tags'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'list_components' by emphasizing search functionality rather than listing. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'get_component_details' or other retrieval tools.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_components' or 'get_component_details'. The description implies usage for searching rather than listing or retrieving details, but lacks clear when/when-not instructions or named alternatives. Context is minimal beyond the basic purpose.

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