Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Mobile Design MCP

Mobile Design MCP

by noxpublishing
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

build_design_review_packet

Create a bounded, revision-bound local snapshot for an independent native design review, with modes for consistency, discoverability, motion, accessibility, and performance.

Instructions

Create a bounded, revision-bound local snapshot for an independent native design review. Does not run reviewers or certify quality.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "manifestPath": "<manifestPath>",
      "outputDirectory": "<outputDirectory>",
      "mode": "<mode>"
    },
    "name": "build_design_review_packet"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
modeYes
manifestPathYes
outputDirectoryYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare write, local-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context with "bounded" and "revision-bound" and manages expectations by disclaiming review execution. It does not say what is written into the output directory, whether existing contents are overwritten, or what 'bounded' limits actually are.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, followed by the most important negative constraint. No filler or repetition of the tool name.

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?

For a three-parameter write tool with no output schema and no annotation-level detail on results, the description covers intent and scope but leaves the produced artifact and mode semantics unstated. An agent knows roughly why to call it, but not what it will get back or how mode changes the snapshot.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden and largely does not. "Revision-bound" loosely hints that manifestPath ties the snapshot to a revision, but the mode enum (consistency/discoverability/motion/accessibility/performance) — the key selector — is never explained, nor is outputDirectory's expected contents or preconditions.

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?

States a specific verb and artifact: "Create a bounded, revision-bound local snapshot for an independent native design review." The added clause "Does not run reviewers or certify quality" sharpens the boundary so an agent won't confuse it with an analysis/verdict tool, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

The phrase "for an independent native design review" implies the situation in which to use it, and "does not run reviewers or certify quality" excludes a plausible wrong expectation. However, no alternative tool or explicit precondition (e.g., after which workflow step) is named, so routing is only implied.

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