Retrieve design system guidelines while building to ensure consistent UI components and accurate implementation.
Access guidelines for your design system as you build to ensure consistency.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| json | Yes | Access guidelines for your design system as you build to ensure consistency. |
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. 'Access' implies a read operation but the description does not explicitly state that the tool is non-mutating, what it returns, or any behavioral characteristics. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.
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 concise sentence with no filler, and the central purpose is front-loaded. It could pack in more behavioral or parameter detail without losing conciseness, but as written it is efficient.
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 tool with one required parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should explain what to pass in 'json' and what the tool will return. It instead focuses on design workflow, leaving an agent without enough information to construct a correct invocation.
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?
Although schema description coverage is nominally 100%, the parameter's description is just a repetition of the tool description ('Access guidelines for your design system...') and gives no actual meaning about what the required 'json' string should contain, what format it should be in, or how it affects the operation. The description adds no clarifying value 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, 'Access', and identifies the resource, 'guidelines for your design system', along with the purpose, 'ensure consistency'. It clearly states what the tool does, though with no sibling tools it does not need to differentiate from 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 phrase 'as you build' provides a clear usage context: the tool is meant to be consulted while building to maintain design consistency. With no sibling tools and no exclusions, this context is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.