list_componentsRetrieve all saved TKH components with names, titles, categories, descriptions, and prop names, optionally filtered by category for browsing or building pages.
List every saved TKH component (name, title, category, description, prop names). Optionally filter by category.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| category | No | navigation | marketing | hero | content | social-proof | primitive |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, and the description adds valuable context by enumerating the fields returned (name, title, category, description, prop names), which matters since no output schema exists. It doesn't cover pagination or result-volume behavior, keeping it below a 5.
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 tight clauses with the core action and its return payload front-loaded, then the optional filter. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.
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 simple read-only listing tool with annotations covering its safety profile and the return fields named, the definition is essentially complete. Only minor gaps remain, such as result volume or how results are ordered.
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% and the single category parameter lists its allowed values in the schema, so the schema carries the semantics. The description only restates that the filter is optional, adding little beyond what's already documented.
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 gives a specific verb+resource ('List every saved TKH component') and even enumerates the returned fields, so its purpose is unambiguous. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling search_components, so it falls short of a 5, but a reader can infer the difference between a full listing and a search.
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?
'Optionally filter by category' implies the usage context (browse all when unfiltered, narrow when a category is known), but there is no explicit when-to-use statement or reference to alternatives like search_components for targeted lookups. Usage is left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.