UI Preset MCP Server

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

Annotations cover read/write status (readOnlyHint=false), idempotency (idempotentHint=true), and safety (destructiveHint=false). The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains that the tool 'Resolves inheritance (extends) chain automatically, deep-merging parent tokens,' describes caching behavior with 'force_reload,' and specifies error conditions like 'Preset not found.' No contradictions with annotations exist.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by key behavioral details, usage prerequisites, parameter explanations, and return/error info. Each sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (activating presets with inheritance resolution), the description provides comprehensive context: it covers purpose, usage sequence, behavioral traits, parameters, returns, and errors. Although there's no output schema, the return description ('Preset manifest summary and token count confirmation') is sufficient. Annotations fill in safety and idempotency, making this complete for agent use.

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%, with clear descriptions for both parameters in the schema. The description repeats some parameter info (e.g., 'preset_id' as folder name) but adds minimal extra semantics, such as example values ('glassmorphic-base', 'client-fintech') and the default behavior explanation for 'force_reload.' This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 states the specific action ('Activate a UI preset bundle by ID') and resource ('loads all tokens, component templates, and layout templates'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'list_presets' (listing) or 'scaffold_preset' (creating). It explicitly mentions what gets loaded, providing precise differentiation.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Must be called before any correction, validation, or generation tools.' This clearly indicates when to use it (as a prerequisite) and implicitly when not to use it (after those operations), helping the agent sequence actions correctly among siblings like 'autocorrect_component' or 'validate_ui'.

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