Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Mobile Design MCP

Mobile Design MCP

by noxpublishing
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

list_motion_recipes

Read-onlyIdempotent

Lists authored native motion patterns with SwiftUI and Jetpack Compose variants, helping agents find implemented transition examples to reuse and review against real app evidence.

Instructions

List authored native motion patterns, with SwiftUI and Jetpack Compose variants.

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": "list_motion_recipes"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds real value by disclosing that results include two platform variants (SwiftUI and Jetpack Compose), but says nothing about result volume, pagination, or whether 'authored' scopes to the current user.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the scope (authored, native) and the distinguishing detail (two platform variants) both appear immediately.

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 zero-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description conveys what is listed and the shape of each entry's variants. It falls short on scope (are these the caller's own recipes?), whether full recipe payloads or just names are returned, and any pagination behavior.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing the description needs to disambiguate. It correctly avoids restating parameter details that don't exist.

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 (List) and resource (authored native motion patterns), and the trailing clause signals that each entry carries SwiftUI and Jetpack Compose variants, which distinguishes it from build_motion_recipe. The word 'authored' is slightly ambiguous (authored by the user? by the system?), but the operation is still unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to call this versus build_motion_recipe or get_flow, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. The usage is only inferable from the verb 'List'.

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