Sekura Design MCP

Get a component specification

get_component

Read-only

Retrieve the complete Sekura Design System component spec—anatomy, variants, states, props, tokens, dark mode, and accessibility rules—to build compliant interfaces.

Instructions

The complete spec for one component: anatomy, variants, sizes, states, props, tokens consumed, dark-mode behaviour, full accessibility contract (role, keyboard model, ARIA obligations, WCAG criteria, target size), content rules, and do/don't guidance.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Component id, e.g. "button", "table", "combobox".

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`version`	Yes
`component`	Yes
`schemaVersion`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv3.0.0Oct 3, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "component": {
+      "additionalProperties": {},
+      "properties": {
+        "id": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "status": {
+          "type": "string"
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "id",
+        "status"
+      ],
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "schemaVersion": {
+      "const": 1,
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "version": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "schemaVersion",
+    "version",
+    "component"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

Changed1 schema field changedv2.1.0Sep 8, 2026
- removedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```
First observedv1.0.0Aug 5, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds useful scope information (a single call is comprehensive across anatomy, a11y, tokens, content rules), telling the agent it need not chain other tools, but it discloses nothing about response shape or pagination.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the one-line purpose before an inventory of covered domains. The enumeration is long but each item signals real returned content; nothing is padded with filler or marketing language.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With a readOnly annotation set and an output schema present, the description need not explain return values or safety, and it correctly focuses on what a single call covers. The remaining gap is sibling routing among the many get_* tools, which an agent would have to resolve on its own.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

There is a single required 'id' parameter with 100% schema description coverage, including examples ('button', 'table', 'combobox'). The description adds no additional meaning about the id format or lookup behaviour, so the baseline of 3 for schema-carried semantics is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('The complete spec for one component') and enumerates the domains covered (anatomy, variants, accessibility, tokens), so its scope is unambiguous. It falls short of a 5 because it never distinguishes itself from near-neighbours like get_component_code, get_pattern, or get_behavior, which an agent must choose between.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer it should call this when it needs a component's full specification, and the enumerated coverage acts as an implicit trigger. There is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as get_component_code for code samples or list_components for discovery.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.