get_patternRetrieves a UX pattern’s problem, solution, design rules, accessibility obligations, and anti-patterns to avoid, helping teams apply verified design guidance to recurring interface challenges.
A recurring UX problem and the Sekura answer: the problem, the solution, the rules, the accessibility obligations, and the anti-patterns to avoid.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Pattern id. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.0Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falsev1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already signal read-only behavior and a closed world, so the description does not need to restate those. It adds useful context about the content of a pattern, but it does not disclose details such as whether the response is a full document, whether there are length limits, or how missing ids behave. This is acceptable given the readOnlyHint, but not rich.
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, compact sentence that uses a colon to list the key sections of a UX pattern. It is efficient and free of filler, though the lack of an explicit verb slightly reduces its structural clarity.
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 get-by-id tool with one enum-constrained parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main return content sufficiently. It names the expected sections of a pattern, and the schema handles id validation, making the tool callable without missing critical information.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage for the only parameter, id, including an explicit enum of valid pattern ids. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema fully documents the parameter.
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 clearly identifies the resource as a 'UX pattern' and enumerates its contents: problem, solution, rules, accessibility obligations, and anti-patterns. It is clear about what the tool is about, though it does not explicitly state the retrieval action or distinguish it from sibling tools like get_component or get_foundation.
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 description provides no guidance on when to use get_pattern versus alternatives such as search, list_components, or get_component. It does not mention when to avoid using it or what prerequisites exist, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and title.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.