search_componentsFind UI components by keyword across names, descriptions, categories, and props. Use it to locate sliders, dropdowns, cards, and more for building pages.
Keyword search across component names, descriptions, categories and props (e.g. "slider", "dropdown", "cards").
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already establishes this as a safe read, so the description's added value is limited to the fact that matching spans multiple fields rather than just names. It says nothing about result limits, ordering/relevance, or pagination behavior, all of which matter for a search tool.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with verb+resource, with the searchable-field list and inline examples folded in without any 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 one-parameter, read-only search with no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: purpose, scope of matching, and query examples are covered. Only the shape of results (fields returned, ranking, limits) is left unstated, which is a minor gap here.
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 0% and the single query parameter is an undescribed string, so the description carries the load — and it does so by explaining which fields the keyword matches against and giving concrete example terms ("slider", "dropdown", "cards"). That meaningfully clarifies how to phrase the argument beyond the bare type.
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?
States a specific verb (keyword search) and resource (components), and enumerates the searched fields (names, descriptions, categories, props), which plainly separates it from get_component. It never names a sibling or scope difference explicitly, so it stays short of a 5.
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?
Usage is only implied: the word 'search' plus query examples signal lookup-by-keyword, but there is no guidance on when to prefer this over list_components or get_component, nor any note on exclusions such as empty results or exhaustive listing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.