Build site pages by mapping screens to routes, returning design HTML for each route to provide context for code generation.
Builds a site from a Stitch project by mapping screens to routes. Returns the design HTML for each page to use as context for code generation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| routes | Yes | Array of screen-to-route mappings. | |
| projectId | Yes | The Stitch project ID. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does 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 output (design HTML) but does not say whether building the site mutates the project, persists routes, creates artifacts, or has side effects—important for a 'build' action.
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?
Two sentences with no filler: the first states the action and mechanism, the second states the return value and intended use. The most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.
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?
The description covers the tool's purpose and return value at a high level, but with no output schema, no annotations, and no stated prerequisites or side-effect behavior, an agent is left guessing about persistence, output shape, and whether the build is safe/idempotent. It is adequate but has clear gaps.
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 both required parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description's 'mapping screens to routes' phrase reinforces the routes parameter's meaning but does not add meaningful new semantics beyond the schema.
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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Builds a site') and explains the core mechanism (mapping screens to routes), which makes the tool's purpose clear. It also hints at differentiation from code-generation siblings by stating it returns design HTML as context for code generation, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
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 communicates a clear usage context: invoking this tool produces design HTML meant to feed code generation. It does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or list sibling alternatives, but the downstream-purpose phrasing gives the agent enough context to choose it appropriately.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.