Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ui-annotator-mcp

ui-annotator-mcp

by mcpware
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

get_elements

Retrieve all UI elements detected on the annotated page, including names, CSS selectors, positions, and sizes. Use this data to interpret user references to specific interface components.

Instructions

Get all UI elements detected on the currently annotated page. Returns element names, CSS selectors, positions, and sizes. Use this to understand what the user is referring to when they describe a UI element.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_elements"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Without annotations, the description indicates a read-only operation, but it does not disclose dependencies (e.g., presence of an annotated page, permissions) or potential side effects. The disclosure is basic but sufficient for a simple getter.

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?

Three concise sentences: action, return data, usage hint. No redundancy, front-loaded with core purpose. Every sentence adds value.

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?

The description lists return fields but omits format or structure details. It assumes understanding of 'annotated page' and does not clarify scope (e.g., only visible elements). Adequate but could be more complete.

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 no parameters, and the input schema is fully described by its absence. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed. Baseline score of 4 for zero-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage.

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?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves all UI elements from the annotated page and lists the returned data (names, selectors, positions, sizes). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'annotate' or 'highlight_element' by focusing on reading existing elements.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly advises using the tool to understand UI elements the user refers to, providing clear context. However, it does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives like 'inspect_mode'.

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