Magic UI MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation5/5
Every tool has a clearly distinct purpose targeting specific categories of UI components (e.g., backgrounds, buttons, effects, text effects), with no overlap or ambiguity between them. The descriptions clearly indicate each tool retrieves implementation details for its designated component set, making misselection unlikely.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent 'get' + plural noun pattern (e.g., getBackgrounds, getButtons, getEffects), with no deviations in style or structure. This predictable naming scheme enhances readability and agent usability.
Tool Count5/5
With 11 tools, the server is well-scoped for a UI component library, covering diverse categories like backgrounds, buttons, effects, layout, media, motion, text effects, text reveal, UI components, and widgets. Each tool earns its place by addressing a distinct aspect of the domain.
Completeness5/5
The tool set provides comprehensive coverage for a Magic UI component library, including all major UI categories from basic elements (buttons, backgrounds) to advanced effects (motion, text effects) and utilities (widgets, layout). The getUIComponents tool offers a complete overview, ensuring no gaps in the surface for retrieving implementation details.
Average 3/5 across 11 of 11 tools scored. Lowest: 2.4/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- 1 of 1 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'Provides implementation details' but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, what format the details are in (e.g., code, documentation), or any limitations like rate limits or authentication needs. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that lists multiple components, which is concise but could be more structured. It front-loads the purpose but includes a somewhat cluttered list of components (e.g., 'hero-video-dialog, terminal, marquee, script-copy-btn, code-comparison components'), which might be verbose. However, it does not waste words on irrelevant details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (retrieving implementation details for multiple components), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'implementation details' entail (e.g., code snippets, configurations, usage examples) or how the results are returned, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively.
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 has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and it appropriately does not mention any. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as it avoids unnecessary information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states what the tool does ('Provides implementation details') but is vague about the specific resource. It lists several component types (hero-video-dialog, terminal, etc.) without specifying if it retrieves all of them, one, or a subset. This distinguishes it somewhat from siblings like 'getUIComponents' but lacks a clear verb+resource pairing.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description lists specific components, which might imply usage for those cases, but it does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or compare to sibling tools like 'getUIComponents' or 'getWidgets' that could overlap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'implementation details' but doesn't specify what kind of details (e.g., code snippets, configuration settings, performance metrics) or behavioral traits (e.g., whether it's a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits). The description is too vague to provide meaningful behavioral context beyond the implied read operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that efficiently states the tool's scope. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with no parameters. While it could be more specific, there's no wasted verbiage or unnecessary complexity in the structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a vague description, the tool definition is incomplete. The description doesn't explain what 'implementation details' means, what format the output takes, or how this differs from sibling tools. For a tool with platform-specific focus, more context about the nature and format of returned information would be needed.
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 has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of parameters. The description appropriately doesn't add parameter information since none exist. This meets the baseline expectation for a parameterless tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Provides implementation details for safari, iphone-15-pro, android components' states a general purpose but is vague about what 'implementation details' means and what specific resources are involved. It doesn't clearly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like getUIComponents or getWidgets that might also provide implementation details. The description avoids tautology but lacks specificity.
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 like getUIComponents or getWidgets. It mentions specific platforms (safari, iphone-15-pro, android) but doesn't explain why one would choose this tool over others for those platforms. There's no explicit when/when-not usage context or named alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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. The description only states what the tool provides, not how it behaves - there's no information about response format, whether it returns structured data or documentation, potential limitations, or any behavioral characteristics. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool actually functions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that lists the specific components covered. It's appropriately sized for a no-parameter tool and front-loads the core information. While it could potentially be more structured with clearer categorization of the components, it avoids unnecessary verbosity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that there's no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more complete context about what 'implementation details' means and what format the response takes. For a tool that presumably returns information about multiple background components, the description is insufficient - it doesn't indicate whether this returns code snippets, configuration options, usage examples, or other implementation guidance.
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 has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (though trivial since there are no parameters). The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter documentation gaps. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, as there are no parameters whose semantics need explanation beyond what the schema provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool 'provides implementation details' for specific components, which gives a general purpose. However, it's somewhat vague about what 'implementation details' means (code examples, configuration options, usage instructions?) and doesn't clearly distinguish this from sibling tools like getEffects, getUIComponents, or getWidgets that might also provide component-related information.
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 sibling tools like getEffects, getUIComponents, and getWidgets available, there's no indication whether this tool is for background-specific components only, whether it's more comprehensive than other tools, or what specific use cases warrant selecting getBackgrounds over other options.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 what the tool provides ('implementation details') but doesn't describe what those details include (e.g., code snippets, configuration options, usage examples), how they're formatted, or any behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or response structure. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to interact with the tool effectively.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that lists all relevant components without unnecessary elaboration. It's front-loaded with the core purpose ('Provides implementation details'), and the component list is specific and relevant. However, it could be slightly more structured by grouping components or clarifying the scope, but it's still highly concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (providing details for multiple components) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'implementation details' entail, the format of the response, or how to interpret the results. For a tool with no structured output and behavioral unknowns, this leaves the agent with insufficient context to use it effectively.
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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, which is correct for a parameterless tool. It focuses on the tool's purpose instead, which aligns with the baseline expectation for zero-parameter tools.
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: 'Provides implementation details for [list of components]'. It specifies the verb ('Provides implementation details') and the resources (9 specific text/animation component types). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'getTextEffects' or 'getUIComponents', which might have overlapping domains.
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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'getTextEffects' or 'getUIComponents', nor does it provide context about what distinguishes this tool's implementation details from other component-related tools. The user must infer usage from the component list alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'provides implementation details' suggests a read-only informational function, it doesn't specify what format the details come in (code examples, documentation, configuration options), whether there are any access restrictions, or what happens when invoked. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that lists all the component types covered. It's appropriately sized for a zero-parameter tool and front-loads the core purpose ('Provides implementation details'). While it could be slightly more structured by grouping similar components, every word serves a purpose in specifying the scope.
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 this is a zero-parameter informational tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally complete. It tells what the tool provides and for which components, but doesn't describe the return format, depth of details, or any limitations. For a tool that presumably returns implementation information, more context about the output would be helpful since there's no output schema.
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 has zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline would be 4 even with no parameter information in the description. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, and the schema already fully documents this. No additional parameter semantics are needed or provided.
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 'provides implementation details' for specific UI components, which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from siblings like getBackgrounds or getButtons by focusing on animated/visual effects components rather than other UI categories. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from getTextEffects or getTextReveal which might overlap with some listed components.
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. It doesn't mention when this tool should be used instead of getTextEffects (which might cover text-specific animations) or getUIComponents (which might include some of these effects as part of larger components). There are no explicit when/when-not statements or alternative tool recommendations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states what the tool does, not how it behaves. It lacks details on permissions, rate limits, response format, or whether it's a read-only operation. This is inadequate for a tool with zero 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and earns its place by clearly stating the action and resource.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'comprehensive list' entails (e.g., format, pagination) or behavioral traits. For a tool with rich sibling context and no structured data, more detail is needed to guide the agent effectively.
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 has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter semantics, but that's appropriate here. A baseline of 4 is applied as it meets expectations for a parameterless tool.
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 with a specific verb ('Provides') and resource ('all Magic UI components'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'getButtons' or 'getWidgets' which likely provide subsets of components, missing an opportunity for clear distinction.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'getButtons' or 'getWidgets'. The description implies it's comprehensive ('all'), but doesn't specify if siblings are for filtered subsets or different data types, leaving the agent without usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool provides implementation details but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's read-only, safe, requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data, or handles errors. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that lists all relevant components. It's front-loaded with the purpose and avoids unnecessary words. However, it could be slightly more structured by grouping components or adding brief categorization.
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 has 0 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimally complete by stating what it provides and which components. However, for a tool that 'provides implementation details', it lacks information on return format, depth of details, or examples, which could help an agent use it correctly.
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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameters need documentation. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, which is correct for a parameterless tool. It adds value by specifying the components covered, which is semantic context beyond the schema.
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 what the tool does ('Provides implementation details') and specifies the exact components it covers (animated-list, tweet-card, etc.). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on specific UI components rather than backgrounds, buttons, devices, etc. However, it doesn't explicitly state the verb 'retrieve' or 'fetch', though 'provides' implies retrieval.
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. It doesn't mention when to use getWidgets versus getUIComponents (which might overlap), getLayout, or other sibling tools. There's no context about use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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. While 'Provides implementation details' suggests this is a read-only operation, it doesn't clarify what format the details come in (code examples, documentation, configuration), whether there are rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens if components don't exist. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.
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 a single, efficient sentence that lists all 7 button components without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters, front-loading the core purpose immediately. Every word earns its place by specifying exactly which components are covered.
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 has no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately states what the tool does. However, without annotations or output schema, it should ideally provide more behavioral context about what 'implementation details' means and how results are structured. The description is complete enough for a simple lookup tool but could be more informative about the nature of the returned information.
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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so there are no parameters to document. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools where the schema fully covers the absence of inputs.
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: providing implementation details for specific button components. It lists 7 specific button types (rainbow-button, shimmer-button, etc.), making the verb+resource combination explicit. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'getUIComponents' or 'getWidgets' that might also provide UI component details.
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. There's no mention of when this tool should be used instead of sibling tools like 'getUIComponents' or 'getWidgets', nor any context about prerequisites or typical use cases. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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. It states the tool 'provides implementation details' which suggests a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, response format, or whether it returns structured data versus documentation. The description is minimal and lacks operational context.
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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a no-parameter tool and front-loads the core functionality immediately.
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 has no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the basic purpose. However, for a tool that 'provides implementation details', the lack of annotations and output schema means the description doesn't clarify what format those details come in (e.g., code examples, configuration, documentation). It's minimally complete but leaves important behavioral aspects unspecified.
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 has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage (empty schema). The description doesn't need to compensate for missing parameter documentation. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as there's no parameter information to add beyond what the schema already provides (none).
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: 'Provides implementation details for [specific components]'. It specifies the verb 'provides' and the resource 'implementation details', listing 8 specific component types. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like getUIComponents or getWidgets that might overlap in scope.
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 sibling tools like getUIComponents and getWidgets that might cover similar UI elements, there's no indication of when this tool is appropriate versus those alternatives, nor any context about prerequisites or constraints.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool provides (implementation details) but doesn't describe how it behaves—e.g., whether it returns code snippets, documentation, or examples; if it's read-only or has side effects; or any performance considerations. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's operation.
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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose and lists the components without any fluff. It's front-loaded with the main action ('Provides implementation details') and uses clear, technical terms, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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 has 0 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally complete by specifying the components covered. However, it lacks details on what 'implementation details' entail (e.g., format, depth) and doesn't address behavioral aspects, making it adequate but with clear gaps for a tool that might return complex motion-related data.
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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter information is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing instead on the components covered. It adds value by specifying the scope (blur-fade, scroll-progress, etc.), which compensates for the lack of parameters, earning a high score.
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 what the tool does ('Provides implementation details') and specifies the exact components it covers (blur-fade, scroll-progress, etc.), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'getEffects' or 'getUIComponents' that might overlap with motion-related components, preventing 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. It lists the components covered but doesn't explain scenarios for choosing it over siblings like 'getEffects' (which might include motion effects) or 'getUIComponents' (which could include animated elements), leaving the agent without usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 'Provides implementation details,' which suggests a read-only, informational function, but does not clarify aspects like response format, potential errors, rate limits, or authentication needs. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It is front-loaded with the key action ('Provides implementation details') and lists the specific components clearly. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying the resource.
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 complexity (zero parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does but lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, or output format. For a simple informational tool, it meets basic needs but could be more complete by addressing when to use it or what the implementation details include.
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 has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description does not need to add parameter semantics beyond the schema, and it appropriately avoids mentioning any. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as it correctly omits unnecessary information.
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: providing implementation details for specific text effect components (word-rotate, flip-text, hyper-text, morphing-text, spinning-text, sparkles-text). It uses a specific verb ('Provides') and identifies the resource (text effect components), but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'getEffects' or 'getTextReveal', which might have overlapping functionality.
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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools like 'getEffects' or 'getTextReveal', nor does it provide context for when this tool is appropriate (e.g., for text-specific effects vs. general effects). Usage is implied by listing components, but no explicit when/when-not instructions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/magicuidesign/mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/magicuidesign/mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/magicuidesign/mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/magicuidesign/mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/magicuidesign/mcp'

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