Skip to main content
Glama

KRDS 컴포넌트 목록

list_components
Read-onlyIdempotent

Returns a markdown index of 43 KRDS components, including IDs, required input field names, and variant names for use in get_component parameters.

Instructions

사용 가능한 KRDS 컴포넌트 43종의 색인을 반환한다. 각 줄은 id·이름, 필수 입력 수, 그것을 채우는 필드명(필드:), 변형 이름(변형:)을 담는다 — get_component의 componentId·inputs·variant에 그대로 쓴다. 페이지 전체를 만들 때는 이 도구보다 get_page_scaffold를 먼저 부른다. 마크업은 get_component, 요건만은 get_requirements. 반환: 마크다운 목록 한 장.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_components"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral detail — the exact per-line content (id·name, required input count, 필드:, 변형:) and the return format (one markdown list) — which no structured field provides. It stops short of full disclosure only in trivial respects, since a zero-parameter static index has little else to disclose.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and followed by the routing rules and return format. No filler, and every sentence carries a distinct piece of information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Zero parameters, no output schema, and the description compensates by describing the return format and the structure of each line. An agent has everything needed to decide when to call it and how to consume the result.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description goes slightly further than required by explaining how the returned fields map onto get_component's componentId, inputs, and variant arguments, giving the agent a concrete handoff path.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ('사용 가능한 KRDS 컴포넌트 43종의 색인을 반환한다') and even quantifies the corpus size. It immediately distinguishes itself from get_component, get_requirements, and get_page_scaffold by naming each alternative in context.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly routes the agent: whole-page construction should call get_page_scaffold first instead of this tool, markup needs get_component, and requirements-only needs get_requirements. Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are stated with named alternatives.

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