Fetch detailed screen information and download URLs for a specific project and screen ID. Access design assets directly with just the required identifiers.
Gets details of a specific screen including download URLs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| screenId | Yes | The screen ID. | |
| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It signals a read operation ('Gets') and notes that the result includes download URLs, hinting at the return payload. It does not mention authentication, URL expiration, or caching, but no mutation or side effect needs to be warned about.
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?
A single crisp sentence, front-loaded with the action and target. Every word earns its place and there is no filler.
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?
For a two-parameter read operation with no output schema, the description conveys the key return content ('download URLs') and sufficient context to invoke correctly. A note on the exact response shape would improve it, but nothing essential is missing.
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 coverage is 100% – both projectId and screenId are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 names a specific verb ('Gets'), a precise resource ('a specific screen'), and a distinctive output element ('download URLs'). This clearly separates it from siblings such as list_screens, get_screen_code, and get_screen_image without needing to open any schema.
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?
No when-to-use guidance is provided. The description does not contrast with get_screen_code or get_screen_image, and there are no conditions or exclusions stated. Usage is only implied by the generic verb 'Gets'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.