Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Easel

Easel

by nemodleo
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

check_tokens

Detect off-token colors, font sizes, weights, radii, and non-4px spacing in screen HTML to verify design edits; omit the file to scan all screens.

Instructions

Find off-token values in screen HTML (colors, font sizes, weights, radii, spacing not a multiple of 4). Use it to verify your edits. Omit file to check all screens.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "check_tokens"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fileNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the token rule enforced ('not a multiple of 4') and the all-screens default, but says nothing about what the response looks like, whether this is purely read-only, or how issues are reported.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what is detected, then the intended use, then the parameter default. Every clause carries information; nothing is redundant.

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

Completeness3/5

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

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should say what a check returns (a list of violations? per-screen results? counts?). It is complete on invocation but leaves the result shape to inference.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 0% and the single 'file' parameter is undocumented in the schema, but the description fully explains its semantics: it is optional and omitting it checks all screens. That compensates for the schema gap for the only parameter.

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 gives a specific verb ('Find') and object ('off-token values in screen HTML') and enumerates the categories checked (colors, font sizes, weights, radii, spacing not a multiple of 4). That is enough to separate it from get_tokens, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

'Use it to verify your edits' gives a clear trigger condition, and 'Omit file to check all screens' resolves the main scoping decision. It stops short of naming an alternative or stating when not to use it, so it falls below a 5.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools