Skip to main content
Glama
marvkr

Better Design

by marvkr
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Review Dashboard Structure

review-dashboard-structure
Read-onlyIdempotent

Review dashboard or overview source against its fixture before presenting. Detects weak hierarchy, rewritten copy, unsupported claims, and raw markup, returning blocking findings to fix.

Instructions

Deterministically review the source of a dashboard or overview before presenting it. For every dashboard, call this after get-review-rules and before check-comprehension. A prose self-review is not a substitute.

Pass the complete page module source, the unchanged fixture, the factual interpretation, and the installed Sidebar, StatCard, and Table source files. Never summarize, reconstruct, or submit only the overview component. The tool derives the overview contract from the fixture. It fails incomplete source, rewritten copy, unsupported claims, weak hierarchy, missing or under-composed installed components, raw aside/table markup, the wrong scan order, action color on every rate, and stepper rails on short flows.

FAIL is blocking and returns an MCP tool error. Fix every finding and call the tool again until PASS. Then run check-comprehension and inspect-spacing, and call finalize-dashboard-review. Only its VALID source-bound receipt permits presentation.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
screenYesWhat this dashboard is, e.g. 'funnel report overview'.
sourceYesComplete TSX or JSX source for the dashboard page.
contextNoOptional. One sentence on WHY you are calling this and what the user asked for (e.g. 'adding nav icons for the fintech dashboard'). Used only for usage analytics; does not change the result.
fixtureYesThe request's unchanged fixture object. The first step is the overview; remaining steps are dependent task screens.
interpretationYesExact supplied or factually derived takeaway that must appear after records.
componentSourcesNoInstalled Sidebar, StatCard, and Table source files for compound-composition review.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description goes well beyond them: FAIL is blocking and surfaces as an MCP tool error, the contract is derived from the fixture, and the specific classes of findings (incomplete source, rewritten copy, unsupported claims, raw markup, wrong scan order) are enumerated. This is exactly the extra behavioral context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and call-order, and every sentence carries a constraint or a routing instruction. Slightly dense in the long failure enumeration and the closing downstream sequence, but nothing is filler.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a complex, nested-schema, no-output-schema tool, the description covers ordering, input completeness rules, failure semantics and downstream steps. It does not describe what a PASS response contains (only that finalize yields the receipt), leaving a small gap in return-value expectations.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline would be 3, but the description adds real semantics: pass the *complete* page module source, the *unchanged* fixture, the factual interpretation, and installed Sidebar/StatCard/Table files, with an explicit prohibition on summarizing or reconstructing. That clarifies completeness expectations the schema's minLength/maxLength cannot express.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Deterministically review the source of a dashboard or overview') and names its position relative to siblings get-review-rules, check-comprehension, inspect-spacing and finalize-dashboard-review. An agent can identify what this does and what it is not without opening the schema.

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?

Explicit sequencing is given: call after get-review-rules and before check-comprehension, then run check-comprehension/inspect-spacing and finalize. It also states a negative case ('A prose self-review is not a substitute') and an iteration protocol ('Fix every finding and call again until PASS').

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools