Compares two screens to detect design inconsistencies and suggests harmonization opportunities across colors, typography, spacing, components, and layout.
Compares two screens to identify design differences, inconsistencies, and suggest harmonization opportunities.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| projectId | Yes | The project ID. | |
| screenId1 | Yes | First screen ID. | |
| screenId2 | Yes | Second screen ID. | |
| compareAspects | No | Aspects to compare. |
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 that the tool 'compares' and 'suggests,' but it does not clarify whether the operation is read-only, whether screens are modified, or what the output/return format looks like.
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 focused sentence that front-loads the verb and scope with no filler. It is appropriately concise, though the brevity sacrifices useful context about usage and behavior.
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?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin to fully support correct invocation. It omits the result format, whether the comparison is read-only, and how the optional compareAspects parameter affects the output or suggestions.
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 already documents all four parameters. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what is already in the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.
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 identifies the operation ('compares two screens'), the subject ('two screens'), and the outcomes (differences, inconsistencies, harmonization opportunities), which clearly conveys the tool's core function. However, it does not differentiate compare_designs from the sibling tool design_diff, which appears to have a very similar purpose.
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 implies the tool is used when comparing two screens, but it gives no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives such as design_diff. There are no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios where another tool would be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.